Skip to main content

Full text of "Facade easements : a preservation alternative for historic Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania"

See other formats





Robert J. Wise, Jr. 

Historic Preservation 

Presented to the faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in 
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of 




David Hollenberfc, Lecturer, Historic Preservation, Advisor 

CL^ivu i{il 

<^C Cv PC tt, O K\ t J^^-O ^ 

Christa Wllmanns-Wells, Lecturer, Historic Preservation, Reader 


X)pn Keene, Professor, City Planning, Reader 

David G. De Long, Professorm Ar^hitp^ture 
Graduate Group Chairman 

FIMEARTS I A/A 'I 0^ I \?9 

'^^ J I 






To my entire family, especially Tami, my wife, and parents; to Bush and 
Barbara James for their kind assistance, enthusiasm, and support; to my 
advisor and readers, especially Christa Wilmanns-Wells, who reminded me how 
important Eagles Mere is; and to all those individuals who provided me with 
information for this study. This work is dedicated to my son, Robert, so that 
he may enjoy Eagles Mere as much as I do. 








Eagles Mere: A Description 5 

Beginnings (1794-1845) 7 

The Interim Period (1845-1885) 12 

Eagles Mere, "The Resort" (1885-1915 and Beyond) 18 

The Eagles Mere Land Company 20 

"Selling" Eagles Mere 28 

Eagles Mere Railroad 37 

The Lake, the Beach, and the Shoreline 38 

Eagles Mere Preservation Overlay 40 

The Park and the North End 42 

The Crestmont and the East Side 48 

The Village, the South End, and the West Side 53 

Community Leaders 56 

Conclusion to Chapter I 60 


Political Situation 65 

Facade Easements 70 

Tax Considerations 77 

Property 78 

Legal Considerations 81 

Tax Consequences 81 

Financial Considerations 85 

Easement Valuation 89 

Valuation Cases 96 

Final Remarks about Easement Valuation 112 

Working Easements 114 

Options 116 

Strategies 118 

The Qualified Organization 120 

The Easement Deed 1 23 

Enforcement 1 24 

Communication 129 

The Eagles iVIere National Historic District 130 

Conclusion to Chapter II 131 





1 . Draft of District Nomination Form 205 

2. Lakeside Hotel Brochure 220 

3. Eagles Mere Association Information 229 

4. Eagles Mere Association By-Laws 231 

5. Eagles Mere 1988 Zoning Ordinance 233 

6. Section 170(h), I.R.C. (1986) 246 

7. PHPC Easement Donation Requirements 249 

8. General Principles of Valuation 250 

9. Hilborn v. Commissioner Appraisal Differences 256 

10. Sample Easement: Brandywine Conservancy 257 

1 1 . Sample Easement: PHPC 260 

1 2. Table of Cases 274 


Interviews 288 



1. "Approaches to Eagles Mere" (Map of Pennsylvania), from The New 
Eagles Mere, advertising brochure, 1910. 

2. Section of U.S.G.S. Map, Eagles Mere, Pa. Quadrangle, 1969. 

3. Sketch Map, Proposed Eagles Mere National Register Historic District, 

4. Sullivan County Map showing Jones' Estate, 1872. 

5. Tax Parcel Identification Map, Eagles Mere Borough, 1988. 

6. Individuals, Business and Land Control Graph. 

7. Population Statistics and Comparisons: Eagles Mere, Shrewsbury 
Township, Laporte, and Sullivan County 

8. Photo of E.S. Chase and House, from James, 'Mere Reflections, page 

9. Syndicate Plot Plan, with 20th century notations, undated. 

10. Map of "Eagles Mere Lands," Geyelin Estate, Syndicate lots, 1924. 

11. Sullivan County Road Map, 191 1. 

1 2. Williamsport & North Branch R.R., Eagles Mere Railroad Map, from Taber, 
Muncy Valley Lifeline. 

13. Eagles Mere Preservation Overlay Maps (Based on U.S.G.S. Map): 

13-A George Lewis, Richter Jones Land Holdings. 

13-B Eagles Mere Land Company (Syndicate) Holdings. 

13-C Private Lands (Former Geyelin/Syndicate Lands 1930). 

13-D Eagles Mere Park, Eagles Mere Forest Preserve, State Property. 

13-E Crestmont Inn Lands and Phipps Estate. 

13-F Steep Terrain and Agriculture Areas. 

13-G Golf Club. 

13-H Sewer Pond Locations. 

13-1 Eagles Mere Preservation Overlay, circa 1930. 

13-J Current Eagles Mere Preservation Overlay. 

14. Chautauqua Plans 

14-A Original Mayville, New York Chautauqua Plan, 1875. 
14-B Mount Gretna, Pennsylvania Chautauqua Plan, 1897. 
14-C "Bird's-Eye View of Eagles Mere" showing Chautauqua. 
14-D Rendering of Eagles Mere Chautauqua Plan. 

15. The Forest Inn and Eagles Mere Park Plan, circa 1910. 

16. Scenic Walks of Eagles Mere, Trail Map, 1910. 

17. Scenic Walks of Eagles Mere, Trail Map, 1916. 

18. Borough of Eagles Mere Zoning Map, 1988. 

1 9. Eagles Mere Golf Club, in "The Forest Inn and Cottages Map", circa 1 930. 

20. Hotel Postcards pictured on cover of "Of Cottages and Kings" article. 



Note: Those listings with the letter "P" followed by a number correspond to 
locations on the Eagles Mere National Historic District Nomination Map, 
Illustration 3. 

1. Aerial view of Eagles Mere, (circa 1944). 

2. Lewis Stone Barn, (Demolished 1886). 

3. Presbyterian Church, Pennsylvania Avenue, (1887). 

4. (P5) Lewis Smith Cottage, Laporte and Allegheny Avenues, (front 1879, 
rear 1803). 

5. (P13) Beach, (circa 1944). 

6. (P13) Beach, (1993). 

7. (PI 2) Beach House and Lockers, (Beach House constructed 1892, moved 
1910, expanded 1933). 

8. Eagles Mere Lake from the Edgemere Boat Landing. 

9. Lake Avenue, showing lake and Toboggan Slide. 

10. Laurel Path Footbridge over lake outlet. 

11. H.G. Clay Cottage, Pennsylvania Avenue, (1 886). 

1 2. (P7) Pennsylvania Avenue, showing typical landscape on west side lake. 

13. (P8) R.W. Clay Cottage, Pennsylvania Avenue, (circa 1891). 

14. (P9) Pennsylvania Avenue, west side of lake. 

15. Bailey Cottage, Pennsylvania Avenue, (1913-14). 

16. (P10) Reily Cottage, Pennsylvania Avenue, (1899). 

1 7. (P1 1 ) Eagles Mere Park Cottages, Forest and Mineral Springs Avenues. 
18. (P11) Eagles Mere Park, site of Forest Inn, Mineral Springs Avenue. 

19. The Crestmont Inn, (Constructed 1899, Demolished 1982). 

20. Crestmont Condominiums, (1984). 

21. (PI) Business District, Eagles Mere Avenue, (General Store Building 
behind clock constructed circa 1885, addition 1904). 

22. Business District, Eagles Mere and Pennsylvania Avenues, (center building 
circa 1902, building on right, 1903). 

23. (P2) Business District, Pennsylvania Avenue, Sweet Shop in center, (circa 

24. (P6) Saint Johns-in-the-Wilderness Episcopal Church, Jones and 
Allegheny Avenues, (1894). 

25. Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church, Eagles Mere and Geyelin Avenues, 
(1905, expanded 1916, attached rectory constructed 1923). 

26. (P3) Emery Cottage, "Altamont,", Eagles Mere Avenue, (1885). 

27. Hartley Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, (1899). 

28. "Shadow Lawn" Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, (1877). 

29. Modern Cottage on site of former Lakeside Hotel, Eagles Mere Avenue, 
(circa 1970). 

30. Fitch Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, (circa 1900). 

31. Fitch Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, (1993 Photograph). 

32. Fitch Cottage, Interior detail, first floor parlor. 

33. Fitch Cottage, Interior detail, mantel. 

34. Ryan Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, (1885, rebuilt 1888). 

35. Vauclain Cottage, "Self Help Lodge," Eagles Mere Avenue. 

36. Rawley Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, (1906). 

37. Miles, Graff Cottage, "Kitestrings," Eagles Mere Avenue, (1885). 

38. Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, site of Lewis Glass Works, (circa 1898). 

39. (P4) Munson Cottage, "Aquilaheim," Eagles Mere Avenue, site of Lewis 
Glass Works, (1886). 

40. 1908 Postcard, showing lake. Steamer "Iroquois," and Crestmont Inn. 



It is no mystery why people from all over the United States come to 

Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania. Its elevation provides a cool mountain retreat 

from hot sun and air conditioners. Its clear lake waters and natural sandy 

beach are perfect for almost any water activity. Wooded trails let a person 

wander deep into the forest, over unique rock formations, and view beautiful 

scenery from high mountain prospects. Generations of families return year 

after year to Eagles Mere, stay in cottages built by their great grandparents, 

share the same summertime activities, and allow their souls and bodies to be 

replenished by the cool mountain air and pure lake waters. 

The forces of nature and the invitation of man that brought people to 

Eagles Mere a hundred years ago continue to do so. Although the great 

hotels are gone and the railroad no longer comes up the mountain, it would 

be hard to provide a new explanation as to why people continue to return to 

Eagles Mere each summer. While modern medicine attempts to replace 

nineteenth century curing myths, few could argue with this 1887 brochure 

entitled Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania's New Mountain Resort: 

"And unless very badly diseased, one needs no tedious routine nor 
physician's prescription. All that is necessary is to take proper care of 
one's self, ramble through the woods, enjoy the many delightful drives, 
clamber over the mountains, stroll through the 'Laurel Path,' row upon 
the lake, bathe in its healthful waters, satisfy the new-found appetite, 
enjoy the quiet and restfulness of the mountains, simply breathe the 
tonic day and night, and nature will accomplish the rest." 

This is why they came to Eagles Mere; and this is why we go there today. 


"The summer days were days of delight; our labors were not 
hard; and together we explored glens and caverns, and laurel 
bowers, and floated upon the lake and listened to the melodious 
warblings of the birds. We took nature to our heart, and found 
her a constant fountain of pleasure." 

-"The Legend of Lewis Lake," by William Herndon, circa 
1808. As quoted in 'Mere Reflections, by Barbara and 
Bush James. 

"For all those who from the mountains, forests, lakes and 
streams of the Eagles Mere and Sullivan Highlands Region gain 
renewed health and inspiration, this volume is dedicated." 

-Eagles Mere and the Sullivan Highlands, Dedication, by 
J. Horace and Robert McFarland, 1944. 

In the summer of 1992, I was employed by the Eagles Mere Historic 
Preservation Committee to fulfill the requirements established by the State 
of Pennsylvania and the National Park Service necessary to nominate part of 
the Borough of Eagles Mere to the National Register of Historic Places. The 
Committee was formed based on the members' love for Eagles Mere, their 
appreciation for its architectural and natural beauty, and their concern for its 
future. The Committee believes that a National Historic District is crucial to 
help preserve Eagles Mere's historic landscape. At the very least, they 
believe that a National Historic District will educate people about the 
significance and value of this historic landscape. 

The majority of the properties within the proposed district are owned 


by out-of-town residents, who use their properties for vacation purposes. 
Many of these property owners are concerned about the nonnination, fearing 
that the presence of a National Historic District will encourage the local 
government to create restrictive historic preservation zoning ordinance. 
Property owners, who lack full-time residency status, are prohibited from 
voting on local matters. A restrictive historic preservation zoning ordinance, 
they fear, could create a loss of property rights over which they have no 
control. The members of the Committee adamantly explained that the 
objective was to nominate the historic district only, and pledged that they 
would not participate in the creation of a restrictive historic preservation 
zoning ordinance. This study presents an alternative method of 

Recognizing a need to protect Eagles Mere's historic, architectural and 
natural landscape, this thesis recommends a voluntary preservation 
alternative for Eagles Mere. It suggests implementing a comprehensive 
preservation easement program in the proposed Eagles Mere Historic 
District. If properly initiated, marketed, communicated, managed, and 
enforced, a preservation easement program such as that proposed herein, 
should succeed in providing benefits to property owners and the community 
at large forever, without a restrictive ordinance. 

Preservation easements are possible when the objects being preserved 
are demonstrably worthy of preservation. Chapter One shows that Eagles 

Mere is historically significant, architecturally intact, and, as an innportant 
cultural landscape, worthy of preservation. In fact, preservation of the 
natural landscape has to a large extent already occurred, which becomes 
evident when one visits the community today. 

Eagles Mere's history of natural landscape preservation, planned and 
unplanned, has thus far protected the community from various external 
influences that have destroyed or drastically altered similar resort 
communities throughout the United States. This history of natural landscape 
preservation has maintained the community's superb natural beauty and 
environmental well-being, allowing it to evolve into the successful and 
prosperous resort community enjoyed by so many people today. 

Much of this preservation is tenuous at best. Nothing protects the 
significant and numerous architectural resources which also make up Eagles 
Mere's landscape. Eagles Mere's nineteenth and early twentieth century 
resort buildings are prime examples of the sweeping changes occurring in 
America at that time. Fortunately, most of these buildings still exist, 
saluting the great architecture of the past and attesting to the strength of 
the present community. Their significance, as presented in Chapter One, 
warrants preservation. 

Chapter Two presents an equitable solution for the preservation of 
Eagles Mere's significant architecture by recommending a facade easement 
program. It explains what facade easements are, and how an easement 

program could be developed for Eagles Mere. The explanation includes a 
discussion of current legal, tax, administration, and enforcement issues 
regarding facade easements. It also shows how a facade easement can, to a 
large degree, be tailored to the specific needs of the property owner, and 
still accomplish its preservation goals. The chapter concludes by illustrating 
that a properly developed and executed easement program may well be the 
quintessential preservation tool for Eagles Mere, due to the protective nature 
of facade easements, and Eagles Mere's unusual political situation. 


Eagles Mere: A Description 

Eagles Mere is situated around a 250 acre natural spring fed lake 
2,100 feet above sea level in north central Pennsylvania's Allegheny 
iVIountalns. (See Map, Illustration 1). The connmunity has a population of 
approximately 125 people in the winter, and 1,500-2,000 in the summer, 
the higher population associated with holiday weekends.^ The community 
includes the original village on the lake's south end, the Park residential area 
on the lake's north end, and numerous cottages around the lake's perimeter 
road, mainly on the west side. (See U.S.G.S. Map, Illustration 2). The 
original village south of the lake contains Eagles Mere's main street. Eagles 
Mere Avenue, the commercial district located at the intersection of Eagles 
Mere and Pennsylvania Avenues, and some of the oldest buildings in the 
community, including cottages and religious structures. 

The "Beach" is located on the lake's north end. Thirteen small boat 
houses line the west and south shores of the lake. The "Laurel Path" 
follows the lake's shore line, and passes such sights as "Fat Man's 
Squeeze" and "Lovers' Leap" rock formations, the Edgemere boat landing 
area on the lake's south end, and the "Footbridge" crossing over the lake's 

'United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Twenty-First Census of the United 
States, 1990. Full time population of 123. 

outlet. The lake is heavily wooded on the east side, where the land climbs 
to the highest point in the community, Crestmont Hill. 

A National Register Historic District has been proposed within the 
incorporated boundaries of this resort lake community, which is officially 
called the Borough of Eagles Mere. (See Sketch Map, Illustration 3). 
Surrounding this proposed district are thousands of acres of forests, natural 
sights, and hiking trails. A private golf course is located immediately west 
of the proposed district. The Eagles Mere National Historic District, if 
nominated, will contain 232 contributing resources and 119 non-contributing 
resources.^ In addition, there are perhaps 150 more cottages and homes, 
most non-contributing, which lie outside of the proposed district. The 
predominant cottage style, in terms of architectural and historic significance, 
is the late nineteenth to early twentieth century architectural mode 
commonly called the "Shingle Style. "^ More than any other style, the 
concentration of large Shingle Style cottages which overlook the lake and 
line the streets of the community set Eagles Mere apart from other towns 
and resorts. These Shingle Style structures, along with other fine examples 
of the Queen Anne, Prairie, and Craftsman styles, provide the architectural 
foundation which makes Eagles Mere a significant component of 

^Eagles Mere Preservation Committee, " Eagles Historic District, " National Register of Historic Places 
Registration Form (Draft), July, 1992. See Appendix 1. 

'See Vincent J. Scully, the Shingle Style and The Stick Style, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 
1955; revised ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971). 

Pennsylvania's resort history. 

(For a street by street analysis, please refer to Appendix 1, which 
contains the current National Register of Historic Places nonnination fornn 
(draft only) of the proposed Eagles Mere Historic District. Photographs of 
Eagles Mere's architecture and landscape can be found on in the Photograph 

Beginnings (1794-1845) 

The earliest history of Eagles Mere found for this thesis is Williann H. 

Egle's An Illustrated History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, written 

in 1876.^^ Of the lake, Egle says the following: 

"Sullivan County contains within its borders several lakes of 
real, and some of historic, importance. The principal, Lewis', or 
as it is now called. Eagle's Mere, is located in Shrewsbury 
Township, at an altitude of nearly 1,900 feet above the level of 
the sea; its greatest length is one and a quarter miles, and its 
width is one-half mile. The waters of this lake are clear and 
placid, with slight undulations towards the east. The depth has 
never been definitely determined. The western shore is lined 
with large quantities of the finest glass sand, which is not 
surpassed by any in the State. The lake is evidently fed by 
subterranean waters, whether streams or springs has not been 
discovered. ..The lake covers an area of nearly six hundred 
acres, is well filled with fish of various kinds. ..The salubrity of 
the air, and the natural enchantment of the surroundings of the 
lake, draw to its environs each year many visitors."^ 

He then provides a brief history of the area, including a description of the 

"William H. Egle, An Illustrated History of tiie Commonwealthi of Pennsylvania, (Harrisburg, Pa. 
DeWill C. Goodrich & Co., 1876), pp. 1082-1083. 


Lewis Glassworks, which once occupied the southern end of the lake. He 
concludes by stating that the area "is now called 'Eagle's Mere Chasse,' and 
will, at no distant day, become a noted summer resort."^ 

The Egle excerpt is significant for two reasons. First, it foresees 
Eagles Mere's future as a resort, specifically as it pertains to the description 
of the lake. Second, it demonstrates, at the time of the writing, the 
importance of the Lewis Glassworks to the history and landscape of Eagles 

Before the Glassworks began, the land that is now Eagles Mere was 
occupied by a succession of American Indian tribes, the last being the 
Iroquois.'' The Iroquois chief, Shikellimy, residing in what is now Sunbury, 
proclaimed that the mountains in which Eagles Mere is located were to be a 
hunting grounds, and forbade permanent residence.^ From the beginning, 
Eagles Mere would be isolated and distant, in addition to the fact that 
permanent residence was prohibited, research early in this century revealed 
that major Indian hunting trails by-passed the area, making what is now 
Eagles Mere reachable only by a side trail. ^ 

^Ibid., p. 1083. 

'J. Horace McFarland and Robert B. McFarland, Eagles Mere and the Sullivan Highlands, 
(Harrisburg, Pa.: J. Horace Mcfarland Co., 1944), p. 13. 


^Ibid. McFarland thought it was also notable that there was no salient Indian name for such an 
exceptional lake, as such words were often used for other locations. Nor did Indians speak of the lake. 
It is possible, McFarland writes on page 14, that the name "Wapaleechen" or White Water may have 
been used to describe the lake. 


Eagles Mere is part of the great tract of land received by William Penn 

from King Charles II of England in 1681, and subsequently purchased from 

the Indians. By 1794 the land was owned by Charles Walstoncraft of 

Philadelphia. Bush and Barbara James, in 'Mere Reflections, (1988) 

described what happened in September of that year: 

"George Lewis was living in New York City at this time. 
Residing in Northumberland, south of Eagles Mere, was Joseph 
Priestly, Jr., son of the man who "discovered" oxygen and 
acquaintance of Walstoncraft. A mutual friend. General Gates, 
invited Lewis and Priestly to a dinner at which Priestly 
described the lake to Lewis. Lewis visited the lake and 
purchased it on September 16, 1794, from Walstoncraft. The 
tract of 10,217 acres cost Lewis a dollar an acre and included 
both Hunters and Eagles Mere lakes. "^° 

From this point on, the ownership of large tracts of land in and around 

Eagles Mere played an important role in the preservation of Eagles Mere, 

which will become evident in the pages below. 

Lewis, an English businessman, was not interested in the lake for its 

natural beauty. His interests were strictly commercial. On the north end of 

the lake, presently known as "the Beach," was an abundance of sand. By 

1808, the Lewis Glassworks began producing glass using that sand. Sand 

was floated via barge to the south end of the lake, where it was transported 

up a hill known as "Mt. Lewis," located just east of the intersection of the 

'"Barbara James and Bush James, 'Mere Reflections: A Unique Journey Through Historic Eagles 
Mere, (Montoursville, Pa.: Paulhamus Litho, Inc., 1 988), p. 2. "Hunters" Lake is a small lake just four 
miles south of Eagles Mere, and would become the power source for Eagles Mere and nearby 

present Laporte and Eagles Mere Avenues." Around his glass factory 
Lewis built a town which included housing, a sawmill, and a school, while 
instituting agricultural production necessary to sustain 250 people. ^^ With 
the exception of a boarding house, which was nnoved 100 feet and is now 
attached to the rear of the 1879 Lewis Smith House, none of these 
structures remain. (See Photo 2). The stone barn, located on what is now 
the village green, was demolished in 1886. Its stones form the walls of the 
Presbyterian Church. (See Photo 3). Lewis' settlement, however, became 
the first permanent village in the county. ^^ 

Lewis' glass was packed in hay that was grown on his farms and then 
was transported in wagons down the mountain on the road Lewis had built, 
before commencing its long journey to points south. The distance, poor 
roads, and less expensive glass imported from Great Britain after the War of 
1812 eventually forced Lewis out of the glass business and into farming.^* 
In 1829, failing in health and in business, he sold his land and returned to 
England, where he died in 1830.^^ 

'Mbid. There is some mystery as to why the glassworks were located on one of the highest points 
of town. 

'=lbid., pp. 2-3. 

'^Thomas J. Ingham, History of Sullivan County Pennsylvania, (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Co., 
1899), p. 17. 

'"George Streby, History of Eagles Mere Borough and Shrewsbury Township, (Dushore, Pa.: 
Sullivan Gazette Printers, 1905), p. 5. 



Although Lewis' adventure was short lived, it laid the groundwork for 

the establishment of Eagles Mere. No longer was the lake, now called Lewis 

Lake, reached only by Indian trail. In researching Eagles Mere, one finds 

early descriptions of its natural landscape, now strikingly familiar, which, 

eventually, propelled Eagles Mere into its role as a much sought after resort. 

Besides scenic beauty, health and medicinal purposes became a major 

motivation for coming to Eagles Mere. From the very first time Lewis 

ventured to the mountain, he perceived the health benefits. George Streby 

wrote that upon his returning to New York City in 1803 after spending six 

weeks at the lake, Lewis discovered many of his friends had died as a result 

of the yellow fever epidemic ravaging that city: 

"Mr. Lewis was so impressed that his life had been spared by 
reason of his remaining in this mountainous wilderness, that he 
resolved to build a home on the shores of the lake, little 
dreaming that his example would be followed by thousands of 
others who in search of health and recreation, would sojourn to 
this beautiful lake."^^ 

In 'Mere Reflections, the James' provide the reader with letters from one of 

Lewis' workers, Azariah Bancroft, to his brother in Ohio. On January 28, 

1813, Bancroft writes: 

"We enjoy our health much as usual all though many about 20 
miles from here are sick and dying especially those that live on 
the main road where the soldiers were returning home[.] 
[Mjany of the soldiers died on the road and a great many more 
after they got home."^^ 

"ibid., p. 5. 

'James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 5. 


Although Lewis had utilized the lal<e and its sand for comnnercial 
purposes, in the end it was undoubtedly the landscape that prompted him to 
request burial on the mountain. Unfortunately, this request was never 
fulfilled. After Lewis' death, his body was shipped back to North America 
and was interned in New York.^^ With the death of George Lewis, the first 
phase of Eagles Mere history concludes. 

The Interim Period (1845-1885) 

Horace McFarland, writing with Robert McFarland in Eagles Mere and 
the Sullivan Highlands, (1944) believed Philadelphia Judge John Richter 
Jones, who purchased the land and lake in 1845, was the first person to 
envision the area as a summer resort. ^^ Jones moved to Eagles Mere and 
induced others to construct summer cottages. In 1847, he established a 
post office under the name of Eagles Mere, dropping the names "Lewis 
Lake" or "Mount Lewis". ^° During the Civil War, Jones raised several 

^^ibid., p. 7 The August heat, prompting bodily decay, prevented further transport of his remains 
after his body arrived in New York, thus his interment there. 

'^McFarland, Eagles Mere, p. 16. A note on J. Horace McFarland: McFarland, (1859-1948) was 
a resident of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and author of many books on the subject of gardening, including 
How to Grow Roses (1929) with Robert Pyle; Modern Roses: A Uniform Descriptive List of all 
Important Roses in Commerce (1 930); What Every Rose Gardener Should Know, (1 940); Memoirs of 
a Rose Man, Tales from Breeze Hill (1949); several of the early 20th century brochures advertising 
Eagles Mere; and several more books on roses and gardening. A summer resident of the Park section 
of Eagles Mere (his family still owns a cottage there), McFarland was instrumental in helping to create 
nature preserves In Eagles Mere (to be discussed later in text). 

^°Streby, History of Eagles Mere, p. 6. This fact is questioned by the James' in 'Mere Reflections, 
who report that the original deed given to the Judge Jones by the previous owner, Susan Mayer, 
stated that the property and lake were "...formerly called Lewis Lake, now Eaglesmere [sic]." See 
page 27. Perhaps Jones had that written into the deed at time of sale. 


companies of troops and was appointed to the rank of colonel. 
Unfortunately, Jones was killed in action in 1863, before fulfilling his dream 
of a summer resort at Eagles Mere.^^ 

Jones and his heirs, like Lewis, maintained control over the lake and 
surrounding property. Ownership and control of large tracts of land in 
Eagles Mere formed the basis for the preserved landscape so evident today. 
(See map containing Jones' Estate, Illustration 4). 

Little is written about the time between Jones' death and 1877, when 

his estate began to sell off lots. However, the search for good health and 

recreation continued to attract people to the mountain lake. George Streby, 

in his History of Eagles Mere Borough and Shrewsbury Township, (1905) 

said this about the period: 

"The climate and beautiful scenery of Eagles Mere attracted 
people from the city during the time of the early settlements. 
Those who were worn out with disease and overwork, were 
always materially benefitted and in many cases completely 
restored to health by a few weeks sojourn at the lake. After 
the death of Mr. Jones the farmers in the vicinity of the lake 
were prevailed upon to entertain those who were advised by 
their physicians to seek the mountain air."^^ 

Thomas Ingham, in his History of Sullivan County Pennsylvania, (1899) 


^Mbid., p. 6-7. According to Streby, he was shot by a Confederate sharp-shooter near Newbern, 
North Carolina, while acting as brigadier general. His body was buried with full nnilitary honors in 
Levering Cemetery in Roxborough, Philadelphia, after lying in state in Independence Hall. His house 
in Eagles Mere, which was Lewis' former house as well, burned to the ground during the time his 
family was in Philadelphia for the funeral. The family never returned to Eagles Mere. 

"Ibid., p. 7. 


"Even at that early period Eaglesmere [sic] had many summer 
visitors, and the homes of the occupants of the property would 
often be taxed to their utmost capacity to accommodate the 
boarders who desired to remain some at the lake."^^ 

Ingham also adds that a certain Dr. Hays, of Muncy, Pa., acted as agent to 

sell lots in Eagles Mere from the Jones estate. He believed the rapid 

development of Eagles Mere as a "summer resort" may have been due to 

"...his [Dr. Hays] faith in the health-giving situation of Eaglesmere."^'* He 

also states in the same paragraph that the stage from Muncy to Laporte 

bypassed Eagles Mere, leaving only families who had small farms adjoining 

the Jones property. ^^ 

Writing at this time (1876) was Egle, who, as discussed above, 
believed Eagles Mere would soon become a "noted summer resort." Since 
Its founding at the beginning of the nineteenth century, people looked to the 
mountain and the lake for health benefits, long before it was fashionable to 
go to "Eagles Mere", the resort. (The health aspect of Eagles Mere will be 
discussed below.) 

Dr. Hays acted as agent to sell property for William Bradford, who 
represented the Jones estate on behalf of Jones' heir, the Geyelin family. ^^ 
As Bradford began to sell off lots, his lake shore property deeds recited a 

'Ingham, History of Sullivan County Pennsylvania, p. 20. 





one hundred foot reservation around the lake to be used for "a public 
purpose," according to E.S. Chase, who will be discussed below. ^^ All of 
the Bradford deeds for properties sold adjacent to the lake recited this 
restriction.^^ In addition, Bradford granted bath and boat houses to be 
erected on the nnargin (site of present beach) of the lake.^^ The 
foundations for the future protection of the lake were now in place. (See 
current Tax Parcel Map, showing restricted lakeshore area. Illustration 5). 

By 1879, Eagles Mere was on the eve of beconning a major resort 
destination. Land owners began to build cottages, including the Lewis 
Smith cottage on Allegheny Avenue, which incorporated the George Lewis 
Boarding House, circa 1803.^° (See Photo 4). Also in 1879, Mr. Van Etten 
of nearby Dushore constructed a portion of the Point Breeze Hotel, later 
named the Hotel Eagles Mere, on what is now the Village Green. The 
following year the hotel was sold to E.V. Ingham who enlarged it. Ingham 
became the first person to advertise Eagles Mere as a summer resort. ^^ 

John S. Kirk of Pennsdale, located south of Eagles Mere near 

^^E. S. Chase, "Eagles Mere Lake," (Mimeographed) Document written after his departure from 
Eagles Mere in September, 1919, and his death in 1 946 at the age of 91 . This document is Chase's 
recollection of the history of Eagles Mere, much it gathered from personal deed research which he 




^'Streby, History of Eagles Mere, p 8. 


Williamsport, came to the mountain in 1878 on the advice of his physician 
to seel< relief from a serious asthmatic condition. ^^ His health much 
improved, he returned the following year and by 1880 occupied a cottage on 
high ground just south of the lake on what is now Eagles Mere Avenue. His 
house became a small hotel, to which additions were made in 1881, 1883, 
1886, 1900, and 1913. "The Lakeside" would eventually rise 5 stories and 
become one of the largest hotels in Eagles Mere, providing spectacular views 
of the lake and surrounding country-side. The Lakeside closed in 1961 and 
was demolished soon after. Throughout its eighty-one years of existence, 
ownership and management never departed from the Kirk family. This 
undoubtedly created a continuity of management style and control. At one 
point the senior Kirk, Edgar Kiess of the Forest Inn, and Raymond Kehrer, 
local businessman, realtor, and owner of the general store, controlled the 
soon-to-be-created Eagles Mere Land Company syndicate, the Lakeside, the 
Raymond Hotel, the Forest Inn, and the Hotel Eagles Mere. Their financial 
Interests in and their magnitude of control over the community is indicative 
of how individuals or groups of individuals, owning or controlling vast 
amounts of land and business over time, helped establish, influence, and 
preserve Eagles Mere. (See Individuals, Business and Land Control Graph, 
Illustration 6). This became more evident as Eagles Mere evolved into a full 
fledged resort. 

^^McFarland, Eagles Mere, p. 47. See pages 47-48 for a history and description of the Kirk's hotel, 
as well as information provided in this paragraph. 


With hotel activity occurring at the Lal<eside and Hotel Eagles Mere, 

and with the opening of snnaller inns, one might wonder why this study 

refers to "The Interim Period" of Eagles Mere extending until 1885, rather 

than 1880. Streby says, "From 1880 Eagles Mere grew rapidly and became 

famous as a summer resort. "^^ And I.H. Mauser, writing in Williamsport 

and North Branch Railroad and The Eagles Mere Railway, (1894) stated: 

"The heirs of Judge Jones held the property intact until 1878- 
79, when a few building lots were sold on Eagle's Mere 
Avenue. A number of cottages were built and the beginning of 
Eagle's Mere as a summer resort began. "^^ 

It seems, however, that the growth of the community at this time, with the 

exception of the one-hundred foot lake shore reserve, was haphazard. The 

growth and development lacked plan and focus, and had the potential to be 

detrimental to the lake and other natural areas. For example, there was no 

sanitary system or electricity, the road system was poor, and heavy 

timbering was occurring nearby. In many areas of Sullivan County the 

forests were being stripped bare, lumbering concentrating first on pine and 

then hemlock, followed by the cutting of hardwoods. It is questionable 

whether Eagles Mere could have sustained its natural beauty, given this 

uncontrolled growth and the depletion of the forests around it. Eagles 

Mere's natural beauty, climate and, of course, the lake itself drew people 

^^Streby, History of Eagles Mere, p. 8. 

^"I.H. Mauser, Williamsport and North Branch Railroad, and the Eagles Mere Railway, (Milton, Pa.: 
Milton Printing Co., 1894). 


seeking health and recreation. If unchecked, over development and 
exploitation could have ruined these natural features and Eagles Mere, no 
doubt, would have lost its appeal. In 1885 far reaching events happened in 
Eagles Mere, which were brought about by men dedicated to planning, 
development, preservation, and making money. They formed a land 
syndicate, called the Eagles Mere Land Company, and purchased the lake 
and surrounding areas. Their actions changed the course of Eagles Mere 

Eagles Mere "The Resort" (1885-1915 and Beyond) 

The thirty years after 1885 were a period of sensational growth in 
Eagles Mere. Three of the four major hotels opened their doors (the 
Lakeside having already opened). A railroad to the top of the mountain 
began operating. The majority of the land was sold off for building lots or as 
larger land holdings. Cottages were built and social patterns, both in the 
cottages and in the hotels were established, many of which are still 
followed. ^^ After World War I and indeed into the late 1950s, little in 
Eagles Mere would change. 

Consequently, it is this period of explosive growth, (1885-1915) upon 
which this thesis focuses. It does not concentrate on the everyday life of 

^^Barbara and Bush James document the social patterns and traditions in 'Mere Reflections, 
discussing throughout the text the various families that inhabited the resort in the summer. The 
entertainment, social, leisure, and recreational activities continue today at peoples' cottages, the 
beach, the golf course, and the inns. 


the resort seeker, instead, it presents what attracted summer visitors to the 
mountain and the lake in the first place, and why they continue to go there 
today. Had there not been a concerted effort on the part of the developers 
and hotel operators, Eagles Mere may have never been able to enjoy its 
success as a resort, much less maintain its landscape so worthy now of 

Why then, is this landscape of such significance? Through careful 
planning and protection, as well as success as a resort. Eagles Mere today 
retains much of the original architectural fabric and natural beauty which it 
did one-hundred years ago. In fact, because trees have long replaced 
George Lewis's barren farm fields, its beauty is no doubt more spectacular. 
Although the hotels are gone, and the railroad is but a "jeep" trail through 
the woods, the vast majority of cottages still remain, many without 
significant alterations. The Beach, on the lake's north end, which George 
Lewis used to obtain sand for making glass, is almost identical to period 
photographs. But perhaps most importantly, the "use" remains unchanged. 
On a micro-scale, buildings still function with their original intent, lodging 
and commercial activities. The lake, hiking trails, and other recreational 
areas are still used as they always have been, for recreation. On a macro- 
scale, people still return to Eagles Mere each summer for the same reasons 
as they have always come: for health, relaxation, relief from the city, social 
interaction, recreation, and to enjoy the natural beauty and architectural 


pleasures that Eagles Mere so abundantly provides. Many individuals stay in 
the same inns or cottages as their ancestors did one-hundred years ago. 
The micro and the macro-scales of use, therefore, are non-exclusive. 
Although the seeds for preservation were planted before 1885, what 
happened in the immediate years after 1885 is most important. The lake 
and environs were preserved intact, and the life-style and architecture 
endures to this day. Ultimately, each established the foundation for Eagles 
Mere's success as a resort, and the preservation of its landscape. 

The Eagles Mere Land Company 

"All the pleasures derived from a lake are usually made possible by 
solid citizens with visions of the future."^® In 1885, a like-minded group of 
gentlemen from Williamsport, Philadelphia, and Hughesville, Pennsylvania 
formed a land syndicate and purchased the lake and 1000 feet around it 
from Estella A. Geyelin.^^ The syndicate, called the Eagles Mere Land 
Company, was composed of Benjamin G. Welch, John R. T. Ryan, Robert 
Allen, and James Gamble, some of whom were summer residents. This 
syndicate, and its later organizational forms, would control the lake and the 
growth of the area up to the present day. 

^^Dorothy S. Mount, A Story of New Egypt and Plumsted Township, (New Egypt, N.J.: 1979), p. 
48. Quote from section discussing the creation of the Village Improvement Association formed to 
improve Mill Pond "Lake" and create a resort in New Egypt, New Jersey, 1908. 

^'Chase, "Eagles Mere Lake," p. 2. 


The land purchased by the syndicate contained William Bradford's 

one-hundred foot restriction on the deed, stating that the land was to be 

reserved for "public purpose" along the lake.^^ According to research done 

by Barbara and Bush James, however, the term "public purpose" would 

evolve into its present form, where the "public" is restricted to members of 

the Eagles Mere Association, which was formed after purchasing the Eagles 

Mere Land Company property in 1961. (The Land Company and Boat 

Company ceased to exist as private entities after this time.)^^ In fact, as 

McFarland explains, writing in 1944: 

"As the lake and the land surrounding it are privately 
owned, the lake itself is not a public water and all boating and 
bathing rights are controlled. This wise regulation for the past 
sixty years has preserved the forest immediately surrounding 
the lake and practically all its original state. "'*° 

In 1885, however, "public purpose" presented a business opportunity-boat 

and lake use rental-- as opposed to protecting the "virgin shoreline" for the 

good of public use.'*^ 

The land the syndicate purchased was far different than it is today. In 

eighty-five years of lake history, there was, as yet, no road cut around the 

east side of the lake. Only a few buildings existed in the village, all to the 

^Ibid., p. 3. 

^James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 28. 

■•"McFariand, Eagles Mere, p. 17. Even today, the only motor boats allowed on the lake are the 
Launch (water taxi) and a snnall lifeguard motor boat. This, of course, enhances the quiet, picturesque 
setting of the lake. 



south end of the lake. Although Shrewsbury Township had a population of 
81 1 in 1890, a major increase from 341 in 1880, the village of Eagles Mere, 
which was located in the township, probably had no more than 200 full time 
residents. (See Population Statistics, Illustration 7). The Lakeside Hotel, 
and to a lesser extent the Hotel Eagles Mere, were the only major hotels 
open. Transportation was primitive, although connecting train service from 
Philadelphia and points south could be found less than twenty miles away in 
Tivoli.'*^ From there it was a carriage ride up the mountain. 

This "rustic" village would quickly change. The syndicate realized 
that major improvements had to be made if Eagles Mere were to become an 
attractive resort and remain competitive. Indeed, resorts were springing up 
in many places at the time. Nearby Highland Lake resort, for example, was 
just five miles from the Tivoli station. At one time it boasted three large 
hotels and a number of cottages around a small lake."*^ Of course, the 
Adirondack and soon to be Pocono resorts, as well as seaside resorts such 
as Cape May, among others, were easily accessible from cities like 
Philadelphia at this time. Within a few short years. Eagles Mere would also 
be joined by other resorts, such as Mt. Gretna, Buck Hill, and Mt. Pocono at 

"^Thomas T. Taber, Muncy Valley Lifeline: The Life and Times of the Williamsport and North 
Branch and Eagles Mere Railroads, 2nd ed., (Muncy Pa.: By the Author, 1972), p. 10. 

"^Thomas T. Taber, "The Life and Times of the Williamsport and North Branch Railroad and the 
Eagles Mere Railroad," Now and Then, October, 1968, p. 31. Today only a handful of cottages 


the turn of the century."'' 

Many of the improvements that took place in Eagles Mere after 1885 
can be attributed to one man, "Captain" Embly S. Chase. (See photograph 
of Chase and his house, Illustration 8). Mr. Chase was born in 1855 and 
lived in the Wilkes-Barre area. A civil engineer by trade, he was recruited in 
1886 as general manager to oversee the day-to-day business of the 
syndicate. In 1888, the syndicate split (in name only) to form the Eagles 
Mere Land Company and the Eagles Mere Boat Company. Chase became 
secretary and treasurer of both companies."^ He remained in Eagles Mere 
until September, 1919."^ During his time in Eagles Mere, Chase would 
assist in the creation of the "Borough" of Eagles Mere, organize the fire 
company, complete a hydrographic survey of the lake to "discover" its 
bottom, survey land, lay out streets, create water and electrical power 
systems for the town, build the first golf course and design the ice toboggan 
slide, develop a program for water sports, plan the famous Laurel Path 
around the lake, clear the lake of fallen trees, construct boating piers on the 
lake, and project the railroad from Sonestown to Eagles Mere."'' Thus, not 
only did Chase make infrastructure improvements, but he organized 

""See J.J Kramer's The Last of The Grand Hotels, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co, 1978) 
for an account of the Pocono resorts of Buck Hill and Mt. Pocono; and Jack Bitner's Mt. Gretna, a 
Coleman Legacy, (Privately Published: 1986) for a history of Mt. Gretna. 

"^Chase, Eagles Mere Lake, p. 3. 




important recreational activities that still exist. Barbara and Bush James 


"It is probable that Eagles Mere would have evolved to its 
present state without Chase; but he was the right man at the 
right time in the right job to hasten that evolutionary 

While this is hard to dispute, one can only speculate the direction of that 

evolutionary process had Chase not come to Eagles Mere, nor remained 

there for thirty-three years. 

When Chase arrived in 1886, he saw a far different landscape than 

the one he would see at his departure. Much of this had to do with the 

syndicate's development plan. (See undated Plot Plan Map, Illustration 9; 

and 1924 Map showing land boundaries. Illustration 10). As one can see 

from the schemes presented in Illustrations 9 and 10, the development 

envisioned by the syndicate (and Chase) was far more extensive than what 

exists today. Had all the lots been sold for construction, the resort would 

have been much larger. For example, the original Land Company map called 

for approximately 128 building lots between Mifflin Avenue and what is now 

the Beach. Today there are approximately thirty-six parcels in that area, 

with cottages occupying roughly half of them. There would have been three 

paralleling roads along the lake to service those lots. Today there is only 

one, Pennsylvania Avenue, plus a grave! road partially occupying what 



would have been Summit Avenue, and Maple Avenue (now Geyelin), a dead 
end street southeast of the Lake. Much of the land was purchased in gross 
by various landowners or, as in the case of the Hotel Raymond property, 
previously owned. Lots slated for the Beach area were never developed, nor 
were lots occupying what is now the athletic field, just opposite of the 
Beach. (See "Athletic Park", Illustration 10). A similar story of planned 
development can be told in the area south of Mifflin to Eagles Mere Avenue 
in the center of town, and areas south of the lake. 

One must question the impact of all these lots, had cottages been 
constructed on them. Although modern sanitation systems were installed to 
provide water and sewer services, it is possible that waste water would 
have drained into the lake, either through leaching or as the system became 
overloaded. Greater amounts of water consumption, especially during 
unusually dry summers, could have reduced the water level of the lake. It 
goes without saying that the very water drawn off the lake to drink could 
have previously been contaminated by waste water. In fact, sewage runoff 
has destroyed lake resorts, and significantly altered others."^ 

The large number of cottages could have impacted the town in other 
ways. First, it is probable that the population of the community, (only once 
did it reach over 300 full-time residents), would have been significantly 

"^See Dorothy S. Mount, New Egypt and Plumsted Township, (1979), p. 52. According to Mount, 
sewage pollution from nearby Fort Dix during World War I scared people from New Egypt's lake 
resulting in the immediate demise of the resort. 


larger to accommodate the large population of summer residents. 

Carpenters, groundl<eepers, domestics, plumbers, road crews, etc. would 

have been undoubtedly in short supply. It is also possible that such a large 

cottage population would have created a greater demand for hotel rooms for 

additional visitors, and thus more and even larger hotels may have been 

needed. The combination of this population (in excess of the then or current 

1,500-2,000 summer and full-time residents) with the additional population 

brought by railroad "excursion" trips, could have drastically altered the 

landscape. ^° Overtaxed infrastructure systems, lake pollution, and general 

overuse of the lake and natural areas could have destroyed the 

environmental and aesthetic qualities that attracted people to the mountain 

in the first place. Compare Eagles Mere to what William Cronon, author of 

Nature's Metropolis (1991), says about Green Lake, Wisconsin, which 

experienced parallel development with Eagles Mere in the late nineteenth 


"By the time I began visiting in the 1950s, perhaps half the 
lakeshore was lined with vacation homes, which have become 
nearly omnipresent in succeeding decades. Most of the shore 
is now built up, and the lake has responded to its large part- 
time human population by growing ever greater quantities of 
algae and weeds, which thrive on the effluent fertilizer that 
leaches from thousands of septic tanks draining thousands of 
washing machines, toilets, and dishwashers."^^ 

^°James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 82. An excursion on a Thursday in 1901 brought 3,000 people to 
Eagles Mere. 

^'William Cronon, Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, (Chicago: W.W. Norton & 
Co., 1991), p. 383. Green Lake was to Chicago like Eagles Mere was to Philadelphia. 


Although in each place the hotels are gone, Eagles Mere residents are 
fortunate to have never experienced Williann Cronon's lannent (nor should 
they). Trees remain omnipresent on the lakeshore, not cottages. And the 
syndicate restricted septic systems from draining into the lake. 

One must be thankful, then, that all that was planned by the 
syndicate was not built. On the other hand, the sanitation and infrastructure 
systems they installed may have been able to contain it. In any event, what 
degree of control would the Land Company have been able to exert over 
such a massive influx of people? As the population has increased steadily 
over the years, similar questions are asked almost yearly in meetings of the 
Eagles Mere Association, the present day descendant of the Land 
Company. ^^ For instance, the Eagles Mere Association has established a 
numerical limit of 250 active memberships. (See Appendix 3). Long gone is 
the time when one simply purchased lake privileges for the day.^^ 

The purpose of this thesis to show that the planning, control, and 
preservation of the lakeshore did, in fact, produce desirable results from the 

^^The Eagles Mere Association was formed in 1961 after cottagers became concerned with the 
large numbers of people using the then public beach facilities in the 1950s. The Land Company's 
interests were purchased and present day lake rules were established (James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 
29). See also Eagles Mere Association, "Information Booklet," Eagles Mere Association, 1991. 
(Mimeographed.); and Eagles Mere Association, "By-Laws," Eagles Mere Association, 1988. 

"Of course, a person or family seeking membership must pay the price of a share in the 
Association, currently $1 ,000, annual membership fees, and meet the approval of the voting members 
of the Association. Some persons have argued that this has perpetuated a certain exclusivity in Eagles 
Mere, giving residents, in effect, the power to discriminate against various groups of individuals from 
coming to Eagles Mere, because they cannot use the lake. There appears no evidence of this today. 


mid-1 880s to the present, the immense plans notwithstanding. In some 
respects Eagles Mere is not unlike today's master-planned resort 
communities, where the individual enjoys the benefits of ownership and 
communal control for maintenance and improvement of common areas. 
Such benefits of membership in the Eagles Mere Association, and other 
organizations, such as the Yacht Club and the Eagles Mere Athletic 
Association, are primarily, but not exclusively, for summer residents. 

From 1885, Eagles Mere developed rapidly into a modern community 
despite its small size and rural location. The syndicate under Chases' 
direction wasted no time in establishing water and sewer systems, side 
walks, rail service, and electrical power, each crucial for advertising a 
modern resort in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This 
dedicated, well organized and well capitalized syndicate, working for private, 
speculative interests, and without the aid or interference of government, 
facilitated rapid development of these critical ingredients. These same 
individuals would be instrumental in incorporating the Borough of Eagles 
Mere in 1899. 

"Selling" Eagles Mere 

Marketing Eagles Mere in the late nineteenth century was done mainly 
through the use of advertising brochures. These brochures were produced 
by the hotels, the syndicate, the railroad, or groups of individuals who 


shared these interests. Many of these advertising brochures still exist. Like 

resort brochures today, turn of the century brochures extolled the virtues of 

the location, the advantages of the specific property advertised, and the 

ease of getting there. Brochures for resorts lil<e Eagles Mere informed their 

reader about one other key issue, health and healing. Throughout the 

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, mountain and lake resorts were not 

only looked upon as places of leisure, but they were "medicinally proven" to 

cure a variety of diseases and ailments common to so many Americans at 

the time. For example, John Wilson, M.D. states in Health and Health 

Resorts, (1880): 

"To the suffering denizen of the crowded city, a trip to the 
country, where fresh air, uncontaminated by human exhalations 
or other noxious effluviae[sic] may be breathed, and where the 
quiet of Nature, the blooming of flowers, the singing of birds, 
and the babbling of brooks are substituted for the excitements 
and perturbating influences incident to the artificial life of large 
cities, will often produce marvelous[sic] improvement in 

William Fitch, M.D., as late as 1928 wrote this about the Bedford Springs 


"Well-informed physicians of the present day admit that the 
best remedy-Nature's own remedy for almost all ailments--is to 
spend as much time as possible in the open air. ..Attractive 
scenery, pleasing surroundings, interesting walks and drives in 
the open air, are as essential as regular meals, proper rest, and 
medicinal care. ..The Medicinal Value of Climate in certain 
diseases is unquestioned, because pure air, warmth and 

^"John Wilson, Health and Health Resorts, (Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, 1880), p. 18. 


sunshine are nature's agents. "^^ 

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: 

" the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate 
than in the streets or villages. the woods we return to 
reason and faith. "^® 

In 1851, Emerson's friend, Henry David Thoreau said: 

"Let me live where I will, on this side is the city, on that the 
wilderness, and ever I am leaving the city more and more, and 
withdrawing into the wilderness. Wilderness is the 
preservation of the World. ^^ 

In an article entitled "the Wilderness" written in 1904, George S. Evans 


"Dull business routine, the fierce passions of the market place, 
the perils of the envious cities become but a memory. ..Your 
blood clarifies; your brain becomes active. You get a new 
view of life. You acquire the ability to single out the things 
worth while. Your judgement becomes keener. "^^ 

Fresh, clean air was noted for its therapeutic value long before the syndicate 

bought Eagles Mere Lake. In 1856, Catharine Beecher wrote: 

"...that there is no law of health so universally violated by all 
classes of persons as the one which demands that every pair of 

^^William E. Fitch, The Carlsbad of America: The Bedford Springs Resort for Health and Recreation, 
(Bedford Springs, Pa., 1928), p. 41. 

^^William Ralph Emerson, "Nature" in Works, I, 15, 16. Quoted in Roderick Nash, Wilderness and 
the American Mind, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 86. 

^''Excursions, the Writings of Henry David Thoreau, Riverside edition, vol. 9, 251, 267, 275, quoted 
in Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 

^^George S. Evans, "The Wilderness," Overland Monthly 43 (1904), 31-33. Quoted in Roderick 
Nash, ed.. The Call of the Wild (1900-19161, (1970), p. 76-77. 


lungs should have fresh air at the rate of a hogshead an 

Finally, Harvey Green, writing in Fit for America: Health Fitness Sport and 

American Society, (1986), reports that: 

"Neurasthenia and other forms of nervous debility were high- 
status maladies, and the resorts, with their swank 
accommodations and dining rooms for "the waters," catered to 
these victims of their own success. ..But in solving it, they were 
still concerned enough with comfort and status to seek a cure 
that was pleasing as well as healthy. "®° 

So nineteenth century Americans, buoyed by greater economic freedom as 
the industrial revolution spawned a middle class (as well as an expanding 
upper class), their awareness heightened by higher education, determined to 
pursue leisure and cures for various ailments (drugs were practically non- 
existent), and encouraged by an expanding transportation network as well as 
a desire to escape the burgeoning cities, ventured into the "wilderness," 
where resort hotels, high atop mountains or ringing crystal clear lakes were 
happy to accommodate them.^^ 

^^Catharine Beecher, Quoted in Harvey Green, Fit for America: Health Fitness Sport and American 
Society, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), p. 78. 

^°lbid., p. 151. 

^'Roland VanZandt, The Catski// Mountain House, (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 
1966). On page 220, Van Zandt notes that the percentage of people living cities of 8,000 people or 
more rose from 1 7% in 1 830 to 30% by 1 890, and nearly half of the population in 1 890 lived in cities 
in excess of 25,000. On Page 223, Van Zandt states that in 1870, only 2,000 people ventured "into 
the mountains." By 1907 that figured climbed to roughly 300,000 people annually. 

Also see John A. Jakle, The Tourist, Travel in Twentieth-Century North America, (Lincoln Ne.: 
University of Nebraska Press, 1985), p. 35-67. Jakle discusses the rise of resorts and their 
accessibility to the middle class. 


Eagles Mere was quick to capitalize on this trend. Eagles Mere's 
brochures show that it could provide almost all of the health, recreation, and 
comfort demands that a resort could offer. The sanitary, rail, and electrical 
power systems provided by the syndicate enabled various business interests 
to advertise Eagles Mere's attributes and advantages as both an escape and 
cure-all from the trials of city living. The hotels and Land Company became 
the chief producers of advertising brochures, capitalizing on the land's 
natural beauty, medicinal value, and modern comforts of their property. 

In 1887, the Land Company produced Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania's 

New Mountain Resort. The brochure listed twelve advantages that made it 

an "Unequalled Resort": 

"1st. Its proximity to the large centres [sic] of population; 2d. 
Its beneficial and delightful bathing; 3d. Its dryness of 
atmosphere; 4th. Its equable temperature; 5th. Its average of 
sunshine; 6th. Its diversity of remedial agencies; 7th. Its 
excellence as a family resort; 8th. Its safeguards against 
dissipation; 9th. Its freedom from extravagance; 10th. Its 
sanitary protection; 11th. Its variety of amusements; 12th. Its 
permanent safeguards. ^^ 

This brochure, upon which all subsequent brochures seem to base their 

information, wastes no words in describing the lake and surrounding lands. 

It speaks of the ease of transportation from New York, Philadelphia, 

Baltimore or Washington, where travelers can catch morning trains and 

^^Eagles Mere Land Company, Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania's New Mountain Resort, advertising 
brochure, 1 887-1 888. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, second college edition, 1 982, 
one definition of "Dissipation" means "the dissolute indulgence in pleasure; intemperance." One 
definition of "to dissipate" means "to indulge in intemperate pursuit of pleasure; carouse." 


arrive in Eagles Mere that same evening. In the next section, the lake is 

described as a "wondrous gem," "supplied by hundreds of ever bubbling 

springs with water clear as crystal." Its shore line Laurel Path is a "...wreath 

of beauty thus encircling this fairy lake, once seen will never be forgotten." 

Finally, "The cottages, villas and hotels on the southern and western shores, 

add life and beauty to the scene." 

As "an unequalled health resort," in the next section, it favorably 

compares Eagles Mere to Adirondack resorts, touting its dry air and cool 


"Its elevation is exactly that now considered by physicians to 
be the best for health. Malaria finds no victims here. Its 
deliciously cool, pure, invigorating atmosphere, laden with the 
health-giving tonic of its pine and hemlock forests, so beneficial 
in cases of asthma, hay fever and other diseases of the 
respiratory organs, its pure mountain water, its well regulated 
sanitary protection, its healthful boating and bathing, its 
sunshine and restfulness, and its numerous other advantages, 
make it indeed nature's own sanitarium,....Here can be found 
Nature's laboratory, filled with remedies for nervous prostration, 
insomnia, catarrhal affections, throat and lung troubles, and 
offering to all tonic and general rejuvenation." 

As a "choice family resort, the brochure claims "Fashionable dissipation, 

excessive social formality, and "Saratoga trunks" have not crushed or stifled 

social fellowship." The sale of liquor was also not allowed. ^^ The Land 

Company reached out to the middle class, perhaps believing the resort was 

not yet positioned to compete with such places as Saratoga or Newport. On 

"According to the James', while the sale of liquor may have been prohibited, consumption and 
alcoholism in fact were widespread, see 'Mere Reflections, p. 209. 


page 11 the brochure reads: 

"There is no parade of wealth, and one must not needs [sic] be 
a millionaire in order to fully enjoy the entire summer with all 
the family at Eagles Mere." 

Finally, it claims on page 12 that Eagles Mere may well be called the "Haunt 

of Artists.": 

"Could landscape be more beautiful than that from the northern 
shore of the lake, embracing for its background the forest 
primeval, dark-shadowed with its giant trees, its massive rocks, 
towering like palisades, and its perfect jungle of laurel and 
rhododendron: in the foreground the brilliant waters of the lake 
glistening and sparkling as though strewn with precious gems." 

As mentioned, almost all of the of the later brochures echoed the 

Land Company's publication. Horace McFarland wrote many of the early 

twentieth century brochures.®'* Although they changed little from year to 

year (no matter who the author was), many provide further insights into 

what the late nineteenth and early twentieth century traveler was seeking, 

and how Eagles Mere provided it. For example, the Lakeside's 1920 

brochure says the lake will "...make one forget the bustling, crowded, hot 

cities."®^ Later, it states that golf, (Eagles Mere had fourteen holes in 

1920), is "...the safety-valve of the high-pressure business man, is another 

of the chief recreation features of Eagles Mere." It also says that the hotel 

is "lighted throughout" by electricity, and capable of providing other modern 

^''Interview with Bush James, author of 'Mere Reflections, Westfield, New Jersey, 4 March 1993. 

®^The Lakeside, The Lakeside in the Pennsylvania Alleghenies, 1880-1920, advertising brochure, 


conveniences. A brochure called, A Day at Eagles Mere in 1900, by 

McFarland describes Eagles Mere's "primitive" forests conditions: 

"Rennembering the sad forest destruction we have seen on the 
journey up the mountain," he states, "it is glad news to learn 
that these lake shores are so held, as public domain, [author's 
emphasis] that no greed or vandalism may ever mar their 
beauty. "^^ 

Eagles Mere provided not only nature's gifts--the lake and the 

mountains-but sustained and protected them with sanitation and 

environmental controls. The 1887 Land Company brochure devotes a whole 

section to "Sanitary Regulations and Moral Safeguards," stating: 

"Several gentlemen owning cottages and lots, and desiring to 
protect their property and their own families, and also to 
promote the general welfare, sometime since purchased the 
lake and land surrounding it, formed the Eagles Mere Land 
Company, opened streets, laid out building lots, made many 
public improvements, adopted these sanitary and moral 
regulations, and then made them permanent by reciting their 
observance as part of the consideration for lots and condition 
running with the title to the land. That their action in this 
matter has met with public approval, is heartily supported by 
this community, and is regarded as a permanent protection..." 


In 1916, McFarland's Eagles Mere This Year: 1916, touts that the sanitary 
sewers "draining away from the lake takes off the wastes of life."^^ On 
this same page, the reader is informed of the absence of factories, mineral 

^^J. Horace McFarland, A Day at Eagles Mere, (Harrisburg: J. Horace McFarland Company), 1 900. 

^'Eagles Mere Land Company, Eagles Mere, p. 1 1 . 

®°J. Horace McFarland, Eagles Mere This Year: 1916, advertising brochure for the Eagles Mere 
Land Company et al., 1916, p. 8. 


extraction industries, and alcohol temptation on the mountain. ^^ Finally, 
Mauser called it a "perfect sewerage system. "''° 

(Note: See Appendix 2 for an example of a typical Eagles Mere 

The Hotel Eagles Mere's 1900 or 1901 brochure states, "The house is 
brilliant with electric lights at night and on cloudy days..."''^ Electrical 
power was introduced to Eagles Mere soon after 1901, the year a company 
was organized by members of the syndicate to produce power. ^^ This was 
quite early for a rural community to have electrical power. Once again, 
however. Eagles Mere was spared the possible onslaught on nature that a 
power-generating station could inflict. The syndicate in this case purchased 
control of nearby Hunters Lake, built a dam, and piped water down to a 
power house in Muncy Valley. ^^ As demonstrated above, electricity was a 
powerful advertising tool, as well as a money making convenience for those 
members of the syndicate who summered on the mountain. (See 191 1 
County Highway Map showing location of Hunters Lake and Power Plant, 


^°Mauser, Williamsport and North Branch, p. 54. 

^^Hotel Eagles Mere, brochure, circa. 1900. This brochure was printed by Franklin Printing 
Company, Philadelphia. The hotel at this time had a generator. 

'^George Streby, History of Eagles Mere, p. 10. 

"Ibid. Electricity was available to Muncy Valley and Sonestown, as well. (Note that the railroad 
to Eagles Mere began at the Sonestown station.) The power house still stands just off Route 42 as one 
begins his or her accent up the mountain. 


both south of Eagles Mere, Illustration 11). 

Eagles Mere Railroad 

Another "utility" that the syndicate had a role in developing was the 
Eagles Mere Railroad. Before the advent of the automobile, rail 
transportation was essential for reaching remote areas like Eagles Mere. For 
years the Pennsylvania Railroad and others brought passengers to the 
Williamsport area, thirty-five miles south of Eagles Mere. The Eagles Mere 
Railroad was an eight mile narrow gauge system that connected in 
Sonestown (south of Eagles Mere) with the Williamsport and North Branch 
(W&NB) Railroad. The W&NB did not fully service the area between 
Sonestown and Williamsport until ISSS.^* Travelers wishing to go the 
Eagles Mere before the narrow gauge was placed in service in 1892 took 
carriages from Sonestown to the resort. 

In 1892, under the auspices of Benjamin Welsh, manager of the 
W&NB Railroad and a member of the Eagles Mere Land Company, and with 
financial backing from the hotels, the Eagles Mere Railroad opened. ^^ (See 
1911 County Map, Illustration 1 1 ; and Taber's Line Map, Illustration 1 2). 
Eventually this allowed Philadelphia passengers to take the nightly 
Pennsylvania Railroad Pullman sleeper car directly to Sonestown, after a 

"Thomas T. Taber, "The Life and Times of the Williamsport and North Branch Railroad and the 
Eagles Mere Railroad," Now and Then October, 1968, p. 22. 

''^Taber, Now and Then, p. 27. The railroad opened in July, 1 892, in time for the summer season. 


connection in Halls. Disembarking in Sonestown, passengers then took the 
fifty minute ride up the mountain to Eagles Mere, arriving less than twelve 
hours after beginning their trip.^^ 

As early as World War I, highways between Williamsport and 
Sonestown were paved. Also at this time, the economic condition of the 
areas adjacent to Eagles Mere deteriorated. The W&NB, dependent on 
lumber, coal, and passengers from Sullivan County, began to founder. 
Eventually, control of the Eagles Mere Railroad passed onto a consortium of 
Eagles Mere hotel owners, but ceased operating in 1924 following a 
particularly bad storm which damaged its tracks. ^^ Fortunately, Eagles 
Mere was no longer dependent on the railroad for its livelihood, which by 
that time was averaging just twelve persons per trip.^^ The McFarlands 
continues to mention railroads as a travel alternative in their 1944 work, but 
only as a means of getting to the Muncy Station near Williamsport. From 
there a "motor bus" was necessary to reach Eagles Mere.^^ 

The Lake, the Beach, and the Shoreline 

One "tradition" that has seen continual use since 1881 is motorized 

'"Ibid., p. 15. 

^^Laporte Republican, 26 July 1 922. Article cites sale of railroad to hotel owners, who planned to 
widen the gauge. 

'^Taber, Now and Then, p. 49. 

^'McFarland, Eagles Mere. p. 23. 


lake transportation. Today "The Launch" is but a sightseeing boat owned 
and operated by the Eagles Mere Association. (See Launch in Photo 5). For 
nnany years, however, especially when visitors took the railroad to Eagles 
Mere and had no private transportation, steam powered water taxis 
performed a valuable service. In the late nineteenth century, steam power 
was a popular means of transportation in many lake resorts. ^° In Eagles 
Mere, the service performed the important function of transporting visitors 
from the railroad station to hotel docks around the lake, and of course, to 
the Beach. As with most lake use, the syndicate controlled the service, and 
today it is continued by the Association.^^ Other motor boats, besides a 
small lifeguard boat, are prohibited. ^^ 

A woman brought to the Beach twenty-five years ago exclaimed to 
this author, "Nothing has changed." She had not been to the Beach for 
twenty-five years. If she went to the Beach today, no doubt she would 
repeat her words. In fact, little has changed at the Beach since 1910, when 
the previously constructed beach house was moved to its present location 
and bath houses were constructed. The boat houses remained in their 
original position just to the east of the swimming area. While neither the 

^°Floyd and Marion Rinhart's Summertime: Photographs of Americans at Play 1850-1900, (New 
York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1978). See p. 21-23 for an account of steamer travel. 

^'The term "tradition" is important. Today the Launch is used less as a transportation service than 
a sightseeing/pleasure boat. To keep the tradition alive, in 1986 the Association spent $19,000 for 
its restoration, (James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 47). 

^^See Eagles Mere Association, "By-Laws," Eagles Mere Association, 1961, as amended in 1988. 


syndicate nor the present day Eagles Mere Association have any restrictions 
on what can be done with their buildings at the Beach, the beach structures, 
along with the canoes and Launch, remain as some of the most striking 
examples of the historical continuity that has been so pervasive in Eagles 
Mere since the turn of the century. ^^ (See Beach and Lake, Photographs 5- 

Eagles Mere Preservation Overlay^'* 

The lake, the Laurel Path, beach structures and watercraft form the 
nucleus of Eagles Mere's preservation overlay. The preservation overlay is a 
term used to describe the significant events that have occurred since the 
advent of George Lewis, resulting in Eagles Mere's successful evolution as a 
resort, and the protection of Eagles Mere's natural and architectural 
landscape. For various reasons, some intentional and some unintentional, 
the elements that have attracted visitors to Eagles Mere throughout its 
history have been preserved, and remain, largely unaltered. This has 
allowed Eagles Mere to prosper through time, as it continues to do today. 
The significant elements and events that have created Eagles Mere's 

^^In addition, the Association for the past several years has been spending considerable amounts 
of money restoring their 70 plus year old wooden canoes, instead of purchasing newer, lighter, and 
less expensive ones. Beach lockers were rebuilt in the mid-1970s, however they are almost identical 
in appearance and material to the original ones, which had fallen on disrepair. 

^"The term "Preservation Overlay" should not confused with official planning or zoning terminology, 
which utilize the word "overlay" for land planning purposes. "Preservation Overlay" in this thesis is 
an unofficial means of describing the the preserved lands in and around Eagles Mere. 


preservation overlay are described below, and indicated on a series of 
information and in Illustration 13. The maps begin with the Lewis and Jones 
lands, followed by the syndicate lands, then move clockwise around the 
lake, beginning on the west side of the lake. 

Beginning with Lewis, large land ownership has been a significant 
factor of the overlay. Large landholdings enabled a relatively few number of 
Individuals to control the resort destiny of Eagles Mere. This was continued 
with Richter Jones and was fully demonstrated by the Eagles Mere Land 
Company. Illustration 13-A is a blank map, showing the approximate land 
mass acquired by Lewis and Jones. Illustration 13-B shows the approximate 
land acquired by the Eagles Mere Land Company, including the lake and 
shoreline. The lake and shoreline continued to be protected. 

Some of the most significant areas of this preservation overlay are the 
large property holdings held by individuals other than the syndicate. These 
large private holdings precluded the possibility of cottage construction on a 
large number of lots as originally planned by the syndicate, and has, for the 
most part, prevented further development. (See Illustration 13-C, and 
Photos 11-16, showing properties along Pennsylvania Avenue west of the 
lake.) Bush James believes landowners bought the large parcels to ensure 
privacy and protection for their cottages. ^^ As with much of the land, 
cottages, and hotels, many of these parcels remained with heirs of the 

®^James, Interview, 4 March 1993. 


original owners, not speculators who nnight otherwise build on them. 

The Geyelin fannily, who retained title to vast acreage south of the 
lake after selling the lake and surrounding lands to the syndicate, as well as 
subsequent owners of the land, have never significantly developed the land. 
In fact, one parcel was given to the Catholic Church (Photo 25) to construct 
a chapel in 1905.^® This church, it should be noted, joined the 
Presbyterian (1887), the Baptist (1889), the Episcopal (1894), (Photo 24) 
and the Methodist (1907) churches. ^^ The presence of these churches are 
duly noted in the advertising brochures. The churches' architecture reflects 
their period of construction. Their design and materials relate to the then 
popular Eagles Mere residential architecture, which made use of natural 
materials, and might accurately be described as a blending of man and 

The Park and the North End (Illustration 13-D) 

North of the beach lies the Eagles Mere "Park," undeveloped land, 
and the Wyoming State Forest, a state forest reserve. The history and 
present state of this large area form a significant anchor to the preservation 

®James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 1i 

^'Ibid., p.183-189. While all stand, the Baptist Church was destroyed by a cyclone in 1892, rebuilt 
and burned in 1920 and rebuilt again. It is now the site of the Eagles Mere Museum on Laporte 
Avenue. The Methodist Church became the Federated Church in 1939 after a merger with the Baptist 
Church. It is the only church open all year in Eagles Mere. The Presbyterian Church, on Pennsylvania 
Avenue across from what is now the "village square" was constructed with the stones of Lewis' Barn. 
The Episcopal Church, possibly designed by Philadelphia architect A.B. Jones, seems to carry the shape 
and form of H.H. Richardson's Trinity Church and the stone work of his Ames Gate Lodge. 


overlay of the community. Ironically, much of this area was "preserved" for 
development of a resort. The following account of "the Park" is taken from 
McFariands' Eagles Mere and the Sullivan Highlands. ^^ 

As president of the Williamsport and North Branch Railroad in the 
1880s, Benjamin Welch dispatched his two nephews, C.W. Woddrop and 
Harvey S. Welch to help survey the road. Recognizing the tremendous coal 
and lumber potential of the area, they formed a partnership and purchased 
large tracts of land north of the lake. Seeing the beauty in the land 
immediately north of the lake, they "decided to reserve, uncleared, a tract of 
400 acres for a summer resort development.^^ 

On August 4, 1896, Benjamin Welch and his brother. Rev. Joseph 
Welch opened the Eagles Mere Chautauqua. Hence, Eagles Mere became 
connected with a movement that was attracting hundreds of thousands of 
people to nearly 200 independent Chautauquas throughout the country. ^° 
The Eagles Mere Chautauqua served a "double purpose" of providing not 
only religious, literary, and social culture, but "summer recreation and 
entertainment" as well.^^ General James Beaver, past governor of 

^^McFarland, Eagles Mere, p. 48-55. 

"'Ibid., p. 51. 

^°Jack Bitner, Pennsylvania Chautauqua, 1892-1992, (Mt. Gretna, Pa.: Pennsylvania Chautauqua, 
1992), p.11. Condensed from Jack Biter, Mt. Gretna, a Coleman Legacy, Published by the author, 

^^ Eagles Mere Chautauqua, 1 June, 1896. This issue also refers to Eagles Mere on its front cover 
as, "The Adirondacks of Pennsylvania." On another page it states, "Here in the nnidst of this wealth 
of magnificence. Eagles Mere Chautauqua has taken up its abode, providing a system of mental, 


Pennsylvania, became its president. Eagles Mere Chautauqua shared many 
of the same aspects in planning and development with other Chautauquas. 
According to James Bitner, historian for the Pennsylvania Chautauqua in Mt. 
Gretna (Lebanon County), most Chautauquas were located in rural areas, 
near major bodies of water, and had public buildings relating to those in the 
original Chautauqua in New York.^^ Welch's Chautauqua was no 
exception. (Compare Chautauqua Plans for original New York Chautauqua, 
Mt. Gretna, and Eagles Mere, Illustration 14-A,B,C,D). 

Unfortunately for the Eagles Mere Chautauqua, its guests preferred 
recreation over education, and in 1902 it ceased being a Chautauqua. In 
1906, the Chautauqua Inn was enlarged and became the Forest Inn. Owned 
by the Eagles Mere Land Company, the Forest Inn and the Chautauqua-built 
cottages became known as the Eagles Mere Park. Although the hotel was 
demolished in 1978, the cottages, and Eagles Mere's present schedule of 
summer cultural events at the newly constructed DeWire Center (Laporte 
and Allegheny Avenues) survive as its legacy. A caretaker's cottage and 
deteriorating ground also remain. (See Photos 17 and 18). 

The first Chautauqua guests lived in tents. Soon cottages were 
constructed behind the meeting areas and the Chautauqua Inn. (See Park 

physical and spiritual culture of the summer life that will be both stimulating and refreshing." 

*^Bitner, Pennsylvania Chautauqua, p. 12. Also see Pauline Fancher, Chautauqua: Its Architecture 
and Its People, Miami, Fl.: Banyan Books, Inc., 1 978), p. 2. (plan of original Chautauqua near Mayville, 
NY); and p. 79 (photographs of cottages similar to those in the Park). 


Plot Plan, Illustration 15). Most had no kitchens, as meals were taken in the 
main dining hall of the Inn. By 1930, there were fifty-four cottages, of 
which twelve, according to McFarland, were part of the original 
Chautauqua. ^^ Today there are sixty-seven houses. ^'^ Although no two 
cottages are identical, there is a uniform scale and shape within the Park's 
architecture. Most of the cottages are two stories, many with large wrap 
around porches, and they are set back in equal distance from the street. 
Wood is the predominant building material. Styles are a collection of 
Craftsman, Prairie, and Shingle, among others. This scene is occasionally 
broken with newer cottages, which have generally been constructed on the 
ends of the Park's dead end streets. Both the newer and the older cottages 
in the Park reflect the architecture of the period. For example, an A-Frame 
cottage was constructed in the late 1960s, a pre-cut log cabin was 
constructed in the early 1970s, and a two story, wood clapboard. Queen 
Anne was built in 1991. The Queen Anne style typifies much of Eagles 
Mere's most recent architecture. 

When the Chautauqua idea was dropped in favor of the Forest Inn, 
ninety-nine year leases were offered to individuals wishing to construct new 
cottages, or occupy older cottages in the Park. Because many cottages 
were constructed at this time, while others were constructed as part of the 

^^McFarland, History of Eagles Mere, p. 55. 

^"Eagles Mere Historic Preservation Committee, "Eagles Mere National Historic District Nomination. 
Preliminary Draft," Eagles Mere, August 1992. 


Chautauqua, it is difficult to establish exact dating on most of the older 
cottages. It seenns, however, that the original twelve Chautauqua cottages 
greatly influenced all other architecture in the Park. With the exception of 
cottages built in the past thirty years, the similarities of the older Park 
cottages no doubt reflect the similar tastes of their owners, many of whom 
were first drawn to the area by the Chautauqua. This contrasts sharply with 
the older Shingle Style and Queen Anne architecture located on the south 
and west ends of the lake. Building lots are extremely small (.25-. 50 acre), 
and cottages are constructed extremely close together. The Parks cottages 
are much smaller overall, and display far less architectural detail or splendor 
as do the large cottages south of the lake.^^ Today it remains a private, 
detached, quiet, and highly desirable community. It has a separate 
homeowners association--the Eagles Mere Park Association. 

Another element in the preservation of Eagles Mere grew out of the 
Park development. In 1907, Horace McFarland, then summer resident of the 
Park and very much involved in the naturalist movement, created the Eagles 
Mere Forest Reserve Association.^^ The 400 original Park acreage now 
grew to 1000 acres. ^^ The fear of destruction of the Hemlock forests 

^^The Park architecture can be compared to Mt. Gretna Chautauqua's architecture. Both places 
contain small lots, two story houses, wood construction and large porches. Each displays a uniform 
scale and form. Mt. Gretna, however, is far more condensed than the Park, and its cottages are 
somewhat more architecturally detailed on the exterior. 

^^James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 96. 
^'McFarland, Eagles Mere, p. 55. 


around the Park by lumberman Charles W. Sones compelled McFarland to 

create the Reserve. ^^ In 1916 McFarland wrote: 

"Controlled entirely by the Eagles Mere Company, the owners 
of the Forest Inn, Eagles Mere Park is in effect a well-managed 
private club enterprize, which, with extensive grounds, is kept 
free from passing traffic, noises, and other annoyances. "^^ 

It was created explicitly "for scenic and sanitary purposes only, and not for 

any purpose of financial profit. "^°° Edgar Kiess, who took over 

management of the Forest Inn in 1898 and later became a U.S. 

Congressman, served on the executive committee. Kiess was followed by 

Henry Kirk, who also owned the Lakeside Hotel. Today, the 1000 acre 

Forest Reserve land is a part of the Pennsylvania State Forest system, with 

the exception of the 50 acre cottage area (the Park) and a 142 acre property 

surrounding the Park.^°^ 

The Forest Reserve not only protected these additional lands, but also 

employed a forester, C. Aubry DeLong, to blaze the "Arrow" trails, and cut 

fire lanes around the resort. ^°^ The Red, Green, White, and Blue Arrow 

^James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 96. 

^^J. Horace McFarland, Summer Life Worth Living: This Forest Inn in the Forest, Forest Inn 
advertising brochure, Harrisburg, Pa.: Mt. Pleasant Press, J. Horace McFarland Co., 1916, p. 5. 


^"'Sullivan County, "Tax Parcel Identification Map, Eagles Mere Borough," 1988; Interview with 
Michael Hufnagel, Sullivan County Office of Planning and Development, Laporte, Pennsylvania, 1 4 April 

^°^lbid., p. 96. Fear of fire was based on a May, 1911, fire south of Eagles Mere that burned out 
of control for a week. Backfiring saved the town. The fire was caused by the railroad. 


Trails, all blazed between 1909 and 1911, are still nnaintained. (See Trail 
Maps, Illustrations 16 and 17). Today, residents continue to hike the 
popular trails and enjoy their natural scenery. These trails and sights were 
an important activity in Eagles Mere at the turn of the century and well 
documented in advertising brochures. (See Lakeside Brochure, Appendix 2). 

In 1930, further protection of the area was guaranteed when the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania purchased 40,000 acres of former Sones 
timberland from the Central Pennsylvania Lumber Company. ^°^ (See 
Illustration 13-D). By this time, the forests were almost completely 
"lumbered off," making the Forest Reserve's role in protecting the Park lands 
critical.^"'* The Pennsylvania Game Commission also owns lands in the 
Borough proper just west of the Park.^°^ Taken together, these lands form 
the critical northern segment of Eagles Mere's preservation overlay. 

The Crestmont and the East Side (Illustration 13-E) 

Moving clockwise around the lake from the Park, the next major area 
of land that forms Eagles Mere's preservation overlay is the Crestmont 
property, the late-syndicate's holdings on the east side of the lake, and the 
Rainbow Farms Estate. In discussing the acquisition of the lumber property 

'°^McFarland, Eagles Mere, p. 1 54. 

^""W.S. Swingler, "History of the Forest Lands Around Eagles Mere," Forest Leaves, August, 1930, 
p. 148. 

^°^Eagles Mere, PA., "Tax Parcel Identification Map," 1988. 


by the Commonwealth, McFarland explained that: 

"This forest is divided into two parts by the Loyalsock Creek. 
North of Eagles Mere it adjoins the holdings of the Eagles Mere 
Company [Park etc.], the Louis E. Phipps summer estate 
[Rainbow Farms], and the property of The Crestmont Inn, all of 
which are vitally interested with the Forestry Department in 
proper forest preservation and use."^°^ 

Although Rainbow Farms is no longer owned by the Phipps family, it still 

exists much as it did in the 1930s when it was created. It, in and of itself, 

is worthy of a landscape study. Its 377 acres have continued to serve as a 

buffer between the lumber lands to the east, and Eagles Mere to the west. 

Part of this forest land was the still undeveloped area east of the lake. 

Until the mid-1 890s, there was no road on the lake's east side between the 

Beach and the Eagles Mere Avenue. Because of the real estate activity 

occurring to the west, south, and north of the lake, it is possible that the 

syndicate intended to develop this land at a later date. Today the area is still 

largely undeveloped. In the past fifteen years there have been six cottages 

and homes constructed; however, because there are no other vacant lots 

there, this will likely be the extent of development. (See Tax Parcel Map, 

Illustration 5.) As will be discussed below, the Eagles Mere Conservancy 

ensured perpetual protection of the majority of the former Crestmont Inn 

property by placing it into a conservation trust. The Eagles Mere 

Association controls the rest. 

'McFarland, Eagles Mere, p. 1 54. 


According to Bush James, members of the Eagles Mere Association 
would vehemently protest any development of these lands east of the 
lake.^°^ However, at this time there is nothing that will prevent this from 
happening, should the membership change its mind. There exists no 
absolute protection, with the exception of the one-hundred foot shoreline 
restriction. ^°^ This land, straddling both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, is 
currently zoned R-1, which primarily allows residential development on no 
less than 1.15 acre lots (See Eagles Mere Zoning Map, Illustration 18; and 
1988 Zoning Ordinance, Appendix 5).^°^ Currently, however, this area is 
the most pristine area in the Borough of Eagles Mere, and lies in the 
proposed Eagles Mere National Historic District. It is an important element in 
the preservation overlay. 

McFarland's belief that the owners of the Crestmont Inn were 
interested in preservation is perhaps what inspired him to design a hiking 
trail, the Green Arrow, through Crestmont owned property. It terminated on 

'"'Interview with Bush James, Westfield, New Jersey, 4 IVIarch 1993. 

'°^See Eagles Mere Association "By-taws" however: Specifically, the purpose stated in part (b.) 
is to "...preserve and develop the natural beauty and assure the use and enjoyment of these lands..."; 
while the stated purpose of part (c.) is to lease, mortgage and sell any or all of such lands and lots and 
apply the proceeds to the payment of any outstanding debt...", with the consent of "...75% of the 
shares of the Association entitled to vote...". Therefore, while the land is protected by vote, parcels 
have been sold by the Association in recent years in the "Cathedral Pines" section of Eagles Mere 
immediately west of the Athletic Field on the north end of the lake. Also see Eagles Mere Association 
"Information Booklet," (Introduction Only), Appendix 3; and Eagles Mere Association "By-Laws," 
(Article I - Purpose), Appendix 4. 

'°'Eagles Mere, PA, Zoning Ordinance of 1988, (1988), sec. 6.3. 


the top of Crestmont Hill, where the Crestmont Inn once stood. There are 
several facets to the Crestnriont Inn's history that are worth noting."" 
The Inn opened Its doors in 1900. It was constructed on what was then 
known as "Cyclone Hill," an area that was stripped bare of trees by the 
1892 Cyclone. It became Eagles Mere's largest hotel, offering the most 
activities, commanding the best views, and remaining open longer than any 
major hotel in Eagles Mere. The Crestmont Inn was in many ways similar to 
modern resort hotels. It offered championship tennis, swimming, "pitch and 
putt" golf, riding, lawn games, and a variety of other activities. Although it 
was visible from many points in Eagles Mere, the Crestmont Inn's horizonal 
construction and dark shingles related to the surrounding rustic country-side. 
It was demolished in 1982.''" (See Photos 19 and 40). 

What is important about the Crestmont Inn, besides its ability to 
provide resort services for demanding American vacationers, was its 
ownership. It, like the Lakeside, was closely held by the original family or 
heirs of that family until 1969."^ It closed soon after. These owners, 
perhaps out of a sense of pride and respect for the land itself, never 

^^°Foran excellent account of the Crestmont Inn see Barbara and Bush James, The Crestmont Inn: 
A History, (Williamsport, Pa.: Grit Publishing company, 1984). 

"^Author's note: When I brought my wife to Eagles Mere for the first time, I said "Now look up 
on that hill and you will see the Crestmont..." I stopped in mid-sentence for it was no longer there. 
As we drove up to the site, it was still smoldering from its planned burning following demolition. 

''^Ibid., p. 85-88. William Warner purchased property in 1899 and managed the hotel; William 
Woods, son-in-law, assumed management upon Warner's death in 191 1; W. Tingle Dikerson, William 
Woods' son-in-law bec2me President of the hotel; Woods died in 1 962; 1 969 is the last summer the 
hotel was operated by Dikersons. 


engaged in major development of the property. Although a limited number 
of cottages were constructed during the hotel's operation, and a few since, 
the family never developed the 260 acre property. The last owners had 
planned an eighteen hole golf course and skiing facilities, and in fact, cut the 
fairways through the woods, but clearing ceased when their bank foreclosed 
on the property. 

In 1981, the Eagles Mere Conservancy was organized by a group of 
Eagles Mere citizens and summer residents, who purchased the former 
Crestmont property and sold fifteen acres, which included the hotel and all 
associated buildings, to Robert Oliver, then owner of the Eagles Mere Inn. 
The hotel was razed and in its place stand the nineteen unit Crestmont 
Condominiums. (See Photos 19 and 20 for comparison between the 
Crestmont and the Condominiums). Today the old Crestmont employee 
lodge is a bed and breakfast, and the pool and tennis courts have reopened. 
Individuals also own cottages on former Crestmont grounds below the 

Most of the former Crestmont property has been preserved in its 
present natural state indefinitely by the Eagles Mere Conservancy, a non- 
profit organization whose purpose is to conserve Eagles Mere's undeveloped 
lands. "^ It is one of the most significant pieces of the Eagles Mere 
preservation overlay. The Green Arrow path now traverses its land. The 

'Interview with Fred Godley, Eagles Mere Conservancy, Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania 20 April 1 993. 


Conservancy maintains this trail and others on its property much the same 
way the Forest Reserve managed its property. It preserves one of Eagles 
Mere's most important assets, the forest. 

The Village, the South End and the West Side (Illustrations 13-F, 13-G) 

At the south end of the lake, is the main village area of Eagles Mere. 
Again, various elements have combined in this area to create the present 
underdeveloped situation surrounding the village. First and foremost is the 
terrain. Just outside of the developed areas, the land seems to "fall away" 
from the streets. The steep terrain makes it almost impossible to build on 
this land. Other sections, particularly to the Borough's southern extreme 
and just east of Laporte Avenue, were used for farming. Until recently, 
these areas were not developed. Currently a sizable development (23 units) 
is being created in large lots just east of Laporte Avenue. 

The "village" discussed above contains some of Eagles Mere's most 
significant properties. Most of Eagles Mere's largest and oldest Shingle 
Style buildings are located here, many of which have been photographed for 
this thesis. (See Photos 21-39). While these buildings were documented in 
the district nomination process, they, along with the rest of Eagles Mere's 
architecture, are worthy of separate study. Many of these buildings were 
constructed by builder A.C. (Albert Charles) Little, of nearby Picture Rocks. 
I.H. Mauser called Little: 


"...a prominent architect and builder, [who] has erected about 
three-fourths of the cottages at Eagle's[sic] iVlere. Their beauty 
attest his knowledge of architecture. They are handsome 
throughout and are the crowing ornaments of art to Nature's 
completed works.""" 

A.C. Little is believed to have constructed the Fitch Cottage, circa 1900, on 

Eagles Mere Avenue. Photos 30-33 show the Fitch Cottage's exterior and 

interior details, which are representative of the community's architecture 

throughout this period. 

The final major link or piece in Eagles Mere's preservation overlay is 
the Eagles Mere Golf Club. It is one of the country's oldest clubs, founded 
In 1911."^ By 1916 there were nine holes in play, and by 1923 there 
were eighteen holes. By the time of McFarlands' book (1944), there were 
an additional nine holes in play; however, these are no longer in use."^ 
The original links in Eagles Mere were designed by E.S. Chase on both sides 
of Pennsylvania Avenue, just north of the Hotel Raymond. With the size and 
location of these links being highly inadequate, the Avery Farm, located just 
west of the village, was acquired as the site for a golf club, and the Eagles 
Mere Golf Club was established. (See Illustration 13-G; and circa 1930 Map, 
Illustration 19). 

The size of the Golf Club holdings (approximately 400 acres) created 

''"Mauser, Williamsport and North Branch Railroad, p. 7. 

''^James, 'Mere Reflections, p. 197. Since 1955, when it was reorganized, it has been called the 
'Eagles Mere Country Club." 

''^McFarland, Eagles Mere, p. 69. 


yet another barrier against development or natural resource exploitation. Its 
current success as a country club should, due to the continued popularity of 
golf, ensure the retention of green space west of the town. 

One area that did undergo development in the last thirty years is 
known as "Prospect Hill," just north of Route 42 (Eagles Mere Avenue) 
between the Country Club and Pennsylvania Avenue. (See Tax Parcel Map, 
Illustration 5). This is the only area that contains a syndicate-planned street 
that parallels Pennsylvania Avenue, although today's current lots in no way 
resemble the planned layout. Most of the fifteen cottages are ranch style 
structures constructed in the 1960s. Many of these properties border the 
former Geyelin land holdings, which stretch from Prospect Hill to the Park. 
Zoning for this undeveloped former Geyelin land north of Prospect Hill is for 
lot sizes no less than 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres). "^ 

There is a final geographic factor that, through default, adds to the 
preservation overlay of Eagles Mere. It has been well documented that the 
syndicate was responsible for installing Eagles Mere's sewer system. The 
technology was crude but effective. Eagles Mere's waste water was to be 
treated by a process of oxidation and settlement. Water travels out of 
populated areas and into catch ponds which are strategically placed in low 
areas around the town. Waste water is collected in the ponds, which gives 
bacteria time to break it down and cleanse it, before it travels off the 

'''Eagles Mere, PA, Zoning Ordinance of 1988 (1988), section 5.3. 


mountain. There are three such "sewer disposal ponds," one just east of the 
Park, one southeast of the town, and one just south of the town. Today, all 
are owned by the Borough of Eagles Mere. (See Sewage Pond Locations, 
Illustration 13-H). 

Although the pond to the southeast of Eagles Mere is isolated by 
extremely rough terrain, the presence of the other two ponds have no doubt 
prevented any serious attempt to develop property in their vicinity. 
Likewise, the low tech alternative to sewerage is far less offensive than a 
large single sewer facility. Again one must question the environmental 
impact of these ponds should the population of Eagles Mere increase 
substantially in the future."^ 

Community Leaders 

Before concluding this discussion of Eagles Mere's preservation 
overlay, one must ask if Eagles Mere's preservation occurred as the result of 
comprehensive planning, or no planning at all? The answer seems to be a 
combination of both. Those individuals responsible for the growth and 
definition of Eagles Mere at its inception and throughout much of its growth 
as a resort had values and objectives that, while not equivalent to, at least 
overlapped current preservation objectives. In two words, "connectivity" 

^^^At the time of this writing, the sewer system in Eagles Mere was being upgraded includes the 
construction of a new sewer plant south of the lake near Ridge Avenue, and laying new pipe 
throughout the Borough. There are no plans to stop using the existing system. 


and "continuity" describe the development and subsequent preservation of 
Eagles Mere as it exists today. (See Illustration 6)> 

Connectivity existed between the land owners, business owners, and 
business nnanagers; it existed between these individuals and their various 
business activities; and it existed between these individuals and their land 
use decisions. Continuity, in turn, describes the size and degree of control 
over the land holdings; it describes the length of time these individuals 
owned the land, and made decisions concerning the land; it describes the 
organization of the land or business which allowed a continuation of control 
by subsequent members of the organization or the family, as in the case of 
the syndicate, the Lakeside, and the Crestmont; and it describes the 
evolution of some of these organizations, such as the syndicate becoming 
the Eagles Mere Association in 1961. 

Finally, it is the interaction and cross-membership of these powerful 
and influential individuals over long periods of time that has helped preserve 
the community. The motives may have varied from purely business 
(railroad) to purely preservation (Forest Reserve and Conservancy) to private 
investment and pleasure (Eagles Mere Land Company). This tradition is also 
continued today with large land ownership and business concerns. For 
example, the Endless Mountain Land Development Company owns most of 
Eagles Mere's commercial property in the village proper. All of its buildings 
are contributing structures of the proposed historic district, and include the 


large "village square" adjacent to the commercial area. Although some 
people may disagree, thus far the community has benefitted from the 
company's maintenance and improvements on their property. The company 
is composed of a "father and son" team, (not unlike the Lakeside)."^ As 
with much of the land history of Eagles Mere, their large and important 
property holdings create almost an "all or nothing" situation. The 
commercial district helps give charm to the community. ^^° (See Photos 
21-23) Aside from a few other buildings, it is what visitors see first in 
Eagles Mere. It sits on Eagles Mere's most important intersection. And it 
gives the community a true "center." Therefore, the Endless Mountain 
Development Company's actions have the potential to drastically alter and 
destroy, or preserve and protect their holdings and influence the future of 
the entire community as well. 

To summarize the components of Eagles Mere's preservation overlay, 
the overlay generally includes large masses of land where development has 
been restricted, limited, or has not occurred at all. (See 1930 Overlay Map, 
Illustration 13-1; and Current Overlay Map, Illustration 13-J). In some 

^'^This is not always a happy marriage. While the development company has neither significantly 
altered its properties nor developed the square, its successful business promotions for planned 
activities on the square (antique shows, etc.) have created parking problems, among other things. 
There have been disputes over proposed parking lots. This author believes that without the 
commitment of the company to its investment, the shops and restaurant that are "downtown" Eagles 
Mere could never survive. This helps drive the inn business (it owns the Flora Villa Inn) and gives 
residents diversions from the Beach and other recreational activities. 

'^°See "Of Time and the Winter," Philadelphia Inquirer, 21 February 1993, sec. R, p. R1. Eagles 
Mere, the featured destination in that Sunday's travel section, has "downtown" Eagles Mere on its 
front page. 


instances, the land is lil<ely to exist in its present undeveloped state forever. 
In otiner places, as in the case of the sewer pond areas or where there is 
steeply sloping terrain, there has been little desire to build. Other areas, like 
the Park, have been slightly developed and highly preserved. Recreation, 
such as golf, has preserved other vast areas of green space. Large private 
land holdings, held underdeveloped for personal reasons, have preserved 
other areas. Each create significant barriers against encroachment or over 
development in and around the community. 

Yet this "protection" is tenuous at best. With the exception of the 
lake shore, the Conservancy land, the state forest lands, and the sewer 
ponds, all other land is privately owned. It could be significantly altered at 
any time. Although zoning will control some development within the 
borough, there is no county-wide zoning immediately outside of the borough. 
The impact of major residential or industrial development, natural resource 
extraction, or gradual unplanned infill development could alter and imperil the 
community in much the same way as the original syndicate development 
plans could have done. Today, human use exposes the fragile natural and 
historic environment to significant risk. Without protection, Eagles Mere's 
historic, aesthetic, and architectural landscape could also be imperiled. A 
preservation program is warranted. 


Conclusion to Chapter I 

Chapter One makes evident the significance of the historical, social, 
economic and aesthetic value of the Eagles Mere landscape. This landscape 
is made up of man-made and natural features. Within that landscape, not 
only are Eagles Mere's history and significance encoded, but this history is 
presented as it affected the evolution and development of Eagles Mere as 
we know it today. The landscape has evolved, yet it still reflects its 
nineteenth century roots. While modern man has often been in conflict with 
nature, there is a balance between man and nature in Eagles Mere. 

Chapter One described the history and the geographical overlay of 
preservation which has occurred in Eagles Mere. While it can generally be 
agreed that the protection of the natural landscape around, and including, 
the lake has contributed to the retention of natural beauty and helped ensure 
the area's environmental vitality, one must ask whether and to what extent 
these "measures" have protected the district's historic buildings. 

Have these natural preservation measures also preserved these 
buildings? The answer is both yes and no. In a technical sense, the various 
lands that make up the preservation overlay have not officially protected any 
building. In fact, there is currently nothing directly analogous to the 
preservation overlay preventing anyone in Eagles Mere from demolishing or 
inappropriately altering a historic building. Thus there is an urgent need for 
an effective and compelling preservation plan. 


On the other hand, the various wooded or lightly developed lands 
around the lake, the buildings within the district, and the lake itself all form 
one landscape; a unit. In Eagles Mere's case, the man-nnade and natural 
environments cannot be separated. Where visitors once came to Eagles 
Mere to experience its natural beauty, today they come to experience Eagles 
Mere's architectural "charm" as well. The two form a symbiotic relationship 
that has existed for over one-hundred years. The preserved natural 
landscape has continually attracted people to the resort, creating a demand 
for Eagles Mere's resort-oriented buildings necessary for their survival. 

Beginning with Judge Richter Jones, large landowners were not 
interested in Eagles Mere's lumbering or industrial potential. They 
envisioned Eagles Mere as a resort and thus were vital to the preservation of 
the landscape for resort purposes. Many of these individuals were men of 
means, and constructed substantial cottages that reflected current 
architectural trends. These individuals, having more than simply a passing 
interest in the area, in turn founded organizations, alliances, and associations 
that merged business and recreational interests in an effort to protect and 
enhance their investment. It can only be assumed that their non-financial 
reasons for being in Eagles Mere far outweighed quick and speculative 
financial gain. Maintaining the community's natural resources was vital to 
attracting visitors. The decision by the syndicate, for example, not to 
develop the east side of the lake is a case in point. Perhaps they understood 


the real value (and financial growth) of their investment would rise through 
preservation of the land that brought them to Eagles Mere in the first place, 
and would ultimately add to the personal enjoyment of their investment. 

There are other factors as well. The cottages constructed by these 
and other individuals, for the most part, have remained cottages. One 
reason for this is Eagles Mere's isolation and location. Although the 
community is serviced by a modern state highway, it, lil<e the Indian trail 
before it, remains but a "side trail." Unless one is going to Eagles Mere, 
there is basically no reason to take Route 42 north of Muncy Valley. The 
larger Route 220 is a faster, more direct means of going north or south. 
Second, although its location lends itself to its being a resort community, it 
has never become a bedroom nor a retirement community for ex-summer 
residents. ^^^ Eagles Mere is too distant from any major city and extremely 
inclement in the winter. This has prevented extensive construction of new 
homes and businesses, and has discouraged the winterizing of existing 
cottages. ^^^ 

Summer only cottages have, no doubt, played a role in the 
architectural preservation of Eagles Mere. Since Eagles Mere was 

'^^This may be changing on both accounts. In the past few years, people have located in Eagles 
Mere, and people have retired there. However, other retirees have attempted to retire there, only to 
later establish winter residence elsewhere. 

'^^"Winterizing" occurs when cottage owners convert their previously summer only cottages into 
year around structures. This can impact significantly on the structure with the use of aluminum or 
vinyl siding, or with the possible destruction of the structure altogether, in favor of a energy efficient 


historically a summer resort, most of the older and larger Eagles Mere 
cottages are not winterized. This prevents people from using the cottages 
seven to eight months out of the year. This limited use, no doubt, has 
sharply reduced the risk of fire, helping to maintain Eagles Mere's 
architectural fabric. Eagles Mere has never experienced a major fire which 
devastated large portions of the community. ^^^ While the 1892 cyclone 
caused considerable damage to some structures, and fire has destroyed a 
few major cottages, most of the original cottages constructed in the late 
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries remain. 

To summarize Chapter One, Eagles Mere has an important history as a 
nineteenth and early twentieth century resort. What makes Eagles Mere 
different, however, is that it remains a vital resort, though altered little from 
the turn of the century. Despite the decline of its hotels, Eagles Mere's 
continued success as a destination demonstrates its ability to adapt to 
cultural, social, and economic changes evident in American family, vacation 
and leisure patterns. The fact that Eagles Mere became a resort at an early 
stage did not ensure its survival. Its evolution as a successful resort may 
never have occurred had it not been for the continuity of planning and 
control of large tracts of lands owned by individuals and organizations in and 

'^^A fire in Mt. Desert, Maine, for example, destroyed many of the town's significant Shingle style 
cottages, including some designed by William Ralph Emerson. The fire occurred in 1947. See Roger 
Reed, A Delight to All Who Know It: The Maine Summer Architecture of William R. Emerson, 
(Augusta, ME: Maine Historic Preservation Commission, 1990). 


around Eagles Mere, creating its preservation overlay. Historically, as these 
lands and lake were protected or controlled, Eagles Mere's landscape, which 
had drawn resort seekers to the mountain and lake from its inception, was 



Political Situation 

In 1992, a preliminary proposal to nonninate part of the Borough of 
Eagles Mere to the National Register of Historic Places was accepted by the 
Pennsylvania Bureau of Historic Preservation. By August of that year, a first 
draft of the Nonnination was submitted to the State Historic Preservation 
Officer for staff review. (See Nomination Draft, Appendix 1). While an 
Eagles Mere National Historic District may well be listed on the National 
Register in 1993, many landowners have voiced concern that the proposed 
National Register Historic District will influence if not encourage historic 
legislation by the local government. These individuals, many whom 
adamantly oppose the nomination, are especially concerned that the 
presence of a National Historic District will prompt local government officials 
to impose a restrictive historic ordinance, and ask, "Will the nomination lead 
to such an ordinance?"^^'* 

The answer to that question was and is "Not Necessarily." According 
to Greg Ramsey, Chief of the National Register and Survey Program for the 
Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation, there were 358 national and 
state designated historic districts in Pennsylvania as of June, 1992; fifty-six 

'^"This question was asked repeatedly to the author by property owners in private conversations 
and expressed in two public meetings attended by the author on May 24 and July 24, 1992. 


of those districts have a state authorized preservation ordinance. ^^^ In 
some areas the presence or creation of a National Historic District may 
encourage the adoption of historic zoning; in other areas historic zoning may 
have been enacted long before the district designation; and other areas are 
not affected at all by a district. 

In any event, the concern over the possibility of a historic ordinance is 
justified due to Eagles Mere's unusual political situation. Eagles Mere 
became a borough in 1899.^^® Under the Pennsylvania enabling laws, the 
Borough Council has enacted a municipal zoning ordinance, which was 
revised in 1988.^^^ The 1988 zoning ordinance contains no specific 
historic preservation provisions, although one of its stated purposes is " 
protect the borough's historical heritage. "^^^ However, Eagles Mere's 
Borough Council, as authorized by Pennsylvania's enabling legislation (either 
historic preservation or zoning laws) is empowered to strengthen this 

'^^Interview with Greg Ramsey, Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, 6 April 
1993. See 53 Sections 8002 and 8003 Pa. General Municipal Law, enabling and authorizing historic 
preservation ordinances and historical architectural review boards. Unfortunately, Ramsey's data does 
not include ordinances enacted by municipalities as per enabling legislation in Article VI, Section 603 
(b)(2), "Zoning ordinances may permit, prohibit, regulate, restrict and determine: (2) Size, height, 
bulk, location, erection, construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, razing, removal, and use of 
structures"; and. Article VI, Section 604 (1 ), "Zoning Purposes. --The provisions of zoning ordinances 
shall be designed: (1) To promote, protect and facilitate any or all of the following: well as 
preservation of the natural, scenic and historic values in the environment..." Act of 1 988, P.L. 1 329, 
No. 170, Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. 

'^^George Streby, History of Eagles Mere, p. 9. 

'^'Pennsylvania, Act of 1988, P.L. 1329, No. 170, Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 
(1988); Eagles Mere, Pa., Zoning Ordinance of 1988, (1988). 

'^'Ibid., sec. 1.1-D. 


provision. The Council could create a restrictive historic zoning or 
preservation ordinance and enforce this ordinance by nneans of an 
architectural review board or through its own zoning board, depending on 
the ordinance. Although this could happen with or without the designation 
of a National Register Historic District, opponents of the district believe the 
Nonnination would promote such an ordinance. The possibility of this 
occurring enrages these individuals. 

Although Eagles Mere's summer residents own land and pay taxes, 
they may not participate in local government matters. As temporary 
residents, they have no voting rights. Summer residents would be most 
affected by a historic zoning ordinance if applied within the proposed Eagles 
Mere National Historic District because they own a much higher percentage 
of historic or "contributing" properties within the proposed district. 

Some part-time residents, without voting power, fear that National 
Register Historic District will encourage Borough Council to enact a 
restrictive historic zoning ordinance whose impact will far exceed the 
standard provisions (set-back requirements, height, lot size, etc.) of the 
current zoning ordinance. These individuals claim that they come to Eagles 
Mere to escape from problems like these. ^^^ Concerns such as these are 
to be respected. Assurances from the Borough Council that this will 
probably not happen, unfortunately, cannot dictate future government 

'^^Thoughts expressed by an angry summer resident (and others) of Eagles Mere at the May and 
July, 1992 public information meetings. 



The purpose of this thesis is to examine a nneans to preserve the 
architectural integrity of Eagles Mere while fully accepting the political 
climate summarized above. This requires taking all property owners' 
concerns into consideration, both those in favor of the district a/^o' those 
opposed to it. General support of a preservation plan from both parties is 
critical to its success. Chapter Two describes and recommends an 
alternative preservation method designed to accommodate all property 
owners in Eagles Mere, including part-time summer and full-time residents. 
If the recommendation is accepted, it is more likely that the proposed Eagles 
Mere National Historic District will win the support needed for nomination to 
the National Register. ''^^ There should be no need for the Borough 
Council to enact restrictive property measures once the Nomination is 
accepted, as some residents fear. Most importantly, the recommendation 
should achieve the ultimate goal of preserving Eagles Mere's historic, 
architectural, and natural landscape, possibly forever. 

The major component of this plan calls for the creation of a facade 

'^°ln the May and July, 1992 information meetings. Bill Feese, Eagles Mere council president, 
stated that the Council has no desire to legislate historic restrictions. He also stated that the Council 
could enact a historic ordinance with or without the proposed district. 

'^Mn Pennsylvania, the National Historic District Nomination Process allows for public comment and 
objection of the nomination by property owners. Also, upon completion of the Nomination Form, the 
state allows property owners the right to voice their objection or approval to the nomination via a 
certified letter. If more than 50% of the property owners within a proposed district submit objections, 
the proposed district nomination process will end, and the the district will not be nominated. See 
Pennsylvania, The National Register Process in Pennsylvania, (1 989), p. 3. 


easement program for Eagles Mere. If properly designed and offered to 
owners of contributing properties within the district by a qualified easement 
organization, and with the incorporation of the National Register Historic 
District, such easements as described herein could provide voluntary and 
perpeftya/ protection to Eagles Mere's many architecturally and historically 
significant properties. 

Chapter Two, then, discusses this preservation strategy in light of 
Eagles Mere's peculiar voting situation. It shows how preservation goals 
could be achieved without compelling the Borough Council to enact a 
restrictive zoning ordinance. First, it explains what easements are and how 
they can be used to provide protection for Eagles Mere's historic properties. 
In doing this, it demonstrates the necessity (or, at the very least, 
importance) of the National Register Historic District, and provides a legal 
justification for the easement process. This discussion defines regulatory 
legislation that provides for easements under current tax and preservation 
laws, as well as easement valuation procedures, legal cases, and the 
enforcement of easements. 

Second, Chapter Two develops an easement program for Eagles Mere. 
The program, which should be treated as a suggested approach for 
preservation, and specifically for easement preservation, incorporates 
strategies that meet the particular needs of property owners in Eagles Mere. 
This part of the plan describes the actual "boiler plate" easement deed, the 


easement holder organization, implementation strategies, and marl<eting and 
administration. The last items, marketing and administration, are two of the 
most important elements of the plan, as each is paramount to transforming 
this recommended plan into a successful working preservation management 

Facade Easements 

An easement is a voluntary, property-specific, government-sanctioned 

action which can be used to preserve historically significant buildings and 

open land, in which a landowner, by donating a deed to a qualified non-profit 

organization or government agency, grants away certain rights pertaining to 

the use of property, usually in exchange for tax benefits. The intent of an 

easement, whether it be a facade easement or a scenic conservation 

easement, is to preserve and protect significant buildings and land, which 

are covered under the same laws. Donna Ann Harris, former Vice President 

of Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation (PHPC), a major facade 

easement holder, defines a facade easement as: 

"...a legal agreement in the form of a deed between the owner 
of an historic property and a publicly supported charity, 
government agency, or private historic preservation foundation. 
The deed gives the agency or organization the right and 
obligation to monitor and enforce the protection of the property 
in perpetuity in return for the tax deduction on the owner's 
federal income taxes. The easement transfers from the owner 
to the agency certain property rights, including control of 
exterior modifications to the building, basic minimum 
maintenance provisions, and the absolute prohibition of 


demolition of the property forever. The easement restriction 
binds the current owner and all future property owners. "^^^ 

PHPC's current brochure informs its readers that: 

"An historic facade easement is a means by which the owner of 
an historic building can insure its preservation while at the same 
time retain possession and use of the building. "^^^ 

"Conservation" easements/^* which include facade easements, 

can qualify as charitable contributions for tax consideration under Section 

170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, for which the Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) issued the following regulations in 1 986 in Section 1 .1 70A-14 of the 

Treasury Regulations (Also see I.R.C. Section 170(h) in Appendix 6): 

"A charitable deduction is allowed for the value of a qualified 
conservation contribution. A qualified conservation contribution 
is a contribution of (1) a qualified real property interest..., (2) 
made to a qualified organization..., (3) that is exclusively for 
conservation purposes that are protected in perpetuity. "^^^ 

'^^Donna Ann Harris, "Historic Facade Easements and the Public Trust," The Real Estate Finance 
Journal, Summer, 1989, p. 52. 

^^^Tiie Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, The Philadelphia Historic Preservation 
Corporation's Facade Easement Program: Technical Information, 1 990. 

^^"RESTATEMENT, supra, note 34, at sec. 450. The Restatement of Property provides the 
following definition of an easement: 
"An easement is an interest in land in the possession of another which 

(a) entitles the owner of such interest to a limited use or enjoyment of the land in 
which the interest exists: 

(b) entitles him to protection as against third persons from interference in such use or 

(c) is not subject to the will of the possessor of the land; 

(d) is not a normal incident of the possession of any land possessed by the owner of 
the interest, and 

(e) is capable of creation by creation," 

'^^IRC Section 170(h); Reg Section 1 .1 70A-14(a), Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1993, A:17-1 14. 


The regulations define "Qualified Organizations" as: 

"(1) governmental units; (2) charitable organizations which 
normally receive a substantial part of their support from 
governmental units or from direct or indirect contributions from 
the general public on which meet the public support test; and 
(3) supporting charitable organizations which are controlled by 
one of the above types of qualified organizations. "^^^ 

A qualified organization must be committed to protection of the conservation 

purpose of the donation and have sufficient resources to enforce the 

restrictionsJ^^ As the regulations relate to this study on Eagles Mere, 

they outline the preservation of historic land and certified historic structures, 

defining historic land as: 

"(1) an independently significant land area including any related 
historic resources (for example, an archaeological site or a Civil 
War battlefield with related monuments, bridges, cannons, or 
house) that meets the criteria for listing in the National Register; 
(2) any land within a registered historic district, including any 
buildings that contribute to the significance of the district; (3) 
any land including related historic resources with physical or 
environmental features that contribute to the historic or cultural 
integrity of an adjacent property that is listed separately in the 
National Register of Historic Places and is not a registered 
historic district. "^^^ 

A certified historic structure is defined as any building, structure or land area 

which is: 

"(1) listed in the National Register; or (2) located in a registered 

'^'Reg Section 1 .170A-14(c)(1 ), Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1993, A: 17-1 15. 

^'^Reg Section 1 .170A-14(d)(5)(ii), Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1993, A:17-117. 


historic district^^^ and is certified by the Secretary of the 
Interior as being of historic significance to the district."^''" 

Thus, easements provide intangible and public preservation incentives 
by protecting historic properties in perpetuity; and tangible private financial 
incentives should the easement qualify for a tax deduction by the IRS. If 
properly created, organized, and marketed, these incentives could stimulate 
a successful voluntary and perpetual preservation program, encouraging the 
majority of historic property owners in Eagles Mere to participate. Majority 
participation is crucial to effectively preserve the community's architectural 

Easements, then, convey certain rights of real property from the 
landowner to the qualified easement holder, usually in exchange for tax 
incentives. Ownership, and all that is involved in owning a piece of real 
estate, remains with the conveyor of the deed. "People grant conservation 
easements to protect their land or historic buildings from inappropriate 
development while retaining private ownership ."'^'^'^ While many forms of 
easements exist (railroad right-of-ways, physical access to a land-locked 
property, etc.), this study focuses on one type, the "negative" easement. 

^'^IRC Section 47(c)(3)(B), Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., p.A:17-117. 

'''°IRC Section 170(h)(4)(B); Reg Section 1 .1 70A-14(d)(5)(Mi), Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1993, 

""Janet Diehl and Thomas S. Barrett, The Conservation Easement Handbook, (Alexandria Va.: 
Land Trust Exchange, 1988) cited by Land Trust Alliance, Conservation Easements, (Washington, 
D.C.), information brochure. 


and specifically, facade easements. 

Negative easements grant the easement holder, the qualified 
organization in this case, the right to restrict use of the property or prevent it 
from being used in specific ways.^"^ The National Trust for Historic 
Preservation's Information describes owning a real estate holding as 
possessing a "bundle" of rights, called "fee simple. "^"^^ The property 
owner may "...give away, lease, or sell any of those rights..." subject to 
state and local laws and previous deed restrictions.^"'* An easement is the 
means by which those rights are donated. 

Information discusses three types of easements, scenic or open space 
easements, interior easements, and exterior or facade easements. ^'*^ 
Scenic or open space easements preserve undeveloped or agricultural lands. 
Interior easements, which restrict building interiors, are often difficult to 
enforce and are rarely granted. This study recommends using exterior or 
facade easements as a preservation tool for Eagles Mere's buildings. 
However, because the natural and man-made landscape in Eagles Mere 
should be thought of as a single unit, as described in Chapter One, a 

'"^RESTATEMENT, note 34, at Section 452, as cited in Ellen Edge Katch, "Conserving the Nation's 
Heritage Using the Uniform Conservation Easement Act," Washington and Lee Law Review, 34 (Spring 

'"^Stefan Nagel, ed., "Establishing an Easement Program to Protect Historic, Scenic, and Natural 
Resources," Information, Series No. 25 (1991):2. 




coordinated approach using facade easements and expanding the Eagles 

Mere Conservancy's role in acquiring undeveloped lands is strongly 


Information defines exterior or facade easements (hereafter referred to 

as facade easements) as easements: 

"...which protect the outside appearance of a building. These 
easements usually control exterior alterations and may require 
proper maintenance of the property. They also usually include 
aspects of the scenic easement, to control the development 
rights of the lot on which the building stands and the air rights, 
which are development rights for constructing additional stories 
above the building. "^''^ 

The property owner is the grantor and the receiving organization is the 

grantee. ^'^^ The grantee is charged with enforcing that the provisions set 

forth in the easement document or deed are carried 

out by the property owner. This is important, because as the original 

grantor sells his or her interest in the property, subsequent owners must 

abide by the easement restrictions. The IRS requires easements to be made 

in perpetuity in order to receive tax considerations.^'*^ 

Since no two pieces of property are exactly the same, easement 

'"^Interview with Fred Godley, Eagles Mere Conservancy, Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania, 22 April 
1993. The Eagles Mere Conservancy, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, is considering acquiring and 
protecting additional forests, possibly around the Park. This author also recommends investigating 
highly visible areas along Route 42, just east of Eagles Mere. 

""Nagel, Information, p. 2. 


'"'IRC Section 170(h)(5)(A), Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. 1993, A:17-117. 


documents are unique to the specific property being protected. The intent 
of a facade easement may be preservation of the building, but each 
easement is specifically tailored to a property's unique characteristics, the 
needs of the property owner, and the goals and guidelines of the grantee 
organization.^^" A facade easement only restricts the use of a property as 
set forth in the deed. 

For example, suppose a property owner in Eagles Mere wants to 
ensure that his nineteenth century cottage on Eagles Mere Avenue will be 
preserved long after he has sold the property. If he was interested in using 
an easement, he would first contact a qualified grantee organization to 
determine if the organization is interested in accepting an easement on his 
property. If the organization is interested and the property meets the 
organization's preservation criteria, an agreement in the form of a deed is 
drawn up between the two parties. The deed is usually based on a "boiler 
plate" document, which describes the generic and property-specific 
provisions of the easement. Once both parties agree with the content of the 
deed, it is signed and passed to the grantee organization. ^^^ The actual 
deed is then recorded in the county courthouse. Once recorded, the 
landowner and all subsequent landowners must abide by the provisions of 

'^°Stefan Nagel, Information, p. 3. 

'^Yawrence Berger, "Integration of the Law of Easements, Real Covenants and Equitable 
Servitudes," Washington and Lee Law Review, 43 (Spring 1986):338. Berger cites the requirement 
for written easement documents under the Statue of Frauds. 

76 . 

the easement. The document gives the grantee the power to enforce the 
provisions of the easement so as to ensure the preservation of the property. 
It should also provide for the assignment of the deed to another qualified 
organization should the grantee organization no longer be able to enforce the 

Tax Considerations 

Once the easement is in effect, the landowner can seek tax relief from 
the IRS in consideration for the value of property rights given up by the 
easement. Tax relief is not guaranteed by the IRS. Severe penalties may be 
incurred should the landowner claim a deduction greater than what is 
determined by the IRS. A qualified real estate appraiser will need to be 
retained by the landowner to establish the diminution. Cases regarding 
valuation, a major concern among the IRS and landowners, are discussed 

Because granting an easement can lower property value, it may also 

reduce the real property taxes. An easement can also reduce federal estate 

taxes. ^^^ However, in Preserving Family Lands, Stephen Small cautions 


" is important to emphasize that not every easement 
restricting the future development of our property will qualify 

'^^For a discussion on real estate tax deduction scenarios, including the application of the 
Alternative Minimum Tax, see Stephen J. Small, Preserving Family Lands: A Landowner's Introduction 
to Tax Issues and Other considerations, 1989 ed. (Boston: The Nature Conservancy et. al, 1988). 


you for an income tax deduction. The tax law requires tinat the 
gift be "for conservation purposes." As a rule, the following 
generalization works: the more significant the land is and the 
more it adds to the public good, the more likely it is that you 
will qualify for the deduction. "^^^ 

Finally, granting an easement and claiming a deduction may subject a donor 

to a federal tax audit. All decisions, including appraisal valuations, "must be 

soundly reasoned and defensible. "^^'^ 

The end result, (albeit a best case scenario), is a happy Eagles Mere 

property owner: one who, based on his decision to grant a facade easement 

has reduced his federal income taxes; reduced his property taxes as a result 

of a lower assessment; and reduced his estate taxes upon death because 

the easement has removed what Stephen Small calls the property's "excess 

value. "^^^ Finally, the easement enables a qualified and committed 

organization to ensure that the property will be preserved indefinitely. 


In order to claim a charitable deduction for donating an easement, the 
property must be designated a "certified historic structure," or a contributing 

'"Ibid., p. 8. 

'^"Historic Preservation Foundation of North Carolina, Inc. and Young Lawyers Division of the North 
Carolina Bar Association, Handbook on Revolving Funds for Nonprofit Historic Preservation 
Organizations, (Raleigh, N.C.: The Historic Preservation Foundation of North Carolina, Inc. and the 
North Carolina Bar Association, 1987), p. VI-9. 

'^^Stephen Small, Preserving Family Lands, p. 5. 


building within a National Registered Historic District. ^^^ The building 

must also meet the criteria of the grantee organization. PHPC, one of the 

nation's largest facade easement organizations, with over three-hundred 

properties, declines to accept easements on properties which: 

"...the integrity of the buildings has been compromised or 
where serious maintenance problems are anticipated, such as 
buildings that have been sandblasted, cleaned with harsh 
chemicals, or reported incorrectly. "^^^ 

Like other organizations, PHPC requires extensive documentation from the 

property owner, including a legal description of the property, a map showing 

boundaries, the exact name(s) of owner(s), insurance information, mortgage 

information, building specifications, historical information, and other 

information. ^^^ (See PHPC's Easement Donation Requirements, Appendix 

7). Preservation Pennsylvania, a Lancaster based easement organization, 

requires, in addition to the information above, a Phase I environmental 

audit. ^^^ For tax consideration, the IRS requires the easement holding 

organization to carefully document the property using the legal description, a 

location or boundary survey, the organization's inventory of the property's 

'^^Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, Facade Easement Program: Technical Information, 


'^^Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, easement donation processing requirements, 
Philadelphia. (Mimeographed.) 

'^^Interview with Grace Gary, Preservation Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1 1 January 
1 993. A "Phase I Audit" is a preliminary inspection of property and records, often required by lenders 
for most commercial property transactions. See Glen E. Sibley, "Environmental Insurance," Urban 
Land, July, 1992, p. 37. 


resources to be protected, and a written description of the property's 
physical condition. ^^° If the property is mortgaged, the IRS also requires 
the owner to furnish a subordination agreement with the mortgagee, in 
which the mortgagee agrees to subordinate to the easement granteeJ^^ A 
subordination agreement requires the lender to subordinate its rights in the 
property to the easement holder, which prevents the easement from being 
extinguished in the event of foreclosure. ^^^ 

As the easement donation process proceeds, the grantee organization 
will tour the property and interview the owner to answer any remaining 
questions. If both parties wish at this point to proceed, the grantor should 
then consider the easement's financial, legal, and tax aspects. The grantor 
or donor will be responsible for retaining financial advice, legal 
representation, and a formal appraisal from a appraiser, all of whom should 
be well-qualified. (The grantee organization can usually assist property 
owners in selecting qualified consultants.) Problems, questions, and 
surprises will no doubt occur later if such individuals are not consulted. 
Although a qualified appraiser is required for tax purposes, an appraiser 
knowledgeable in easement valuation is strongly recommended. The three 

'*°Stefan Nagel, Information, p. 14. 

'^'Reg Section 1 .1 70A-14(g)(2), Matthew Bender & Co.. Inc., p. A:17-118. Obtaining a 
subordination agreement from a financial institution or other mortgagee can sometimes be a difficult 
task. For an example of how one organization overcame the lender's concerns, see William Long, 
"Negotiating a Subordination Agreement," The Journal of the Land Trust Exchange, 8 (Spring 1989):8. 

'^^Janet Diehl and Thomas S. Barrett, The Conservation Easement Handbook, p. 64. 


areas: legal, financial, and appraisal are discussed below. 

Legal Considerations 

No person contemplating giving a easement should proceed without 
retaining a "skilled attorney," writes Thomas Coughlin, attorney, author, and 
an expert in historic preservation law and taxation. ^^^ Coughlin points to 
variations among state laws, income and estate tax implications, and the 
general complexity of real estate transactions, all which effect easement 
donations, as reasons to retain legal counsel.^®'* As of 1991, all fifty 
states have passed easement legislation.^*'^ Preservation easements in 
Pennsylvania are authorized under common law.^^® 

Tax Consequences 

While preservation should be the major reason for granting an 
easement, the donation may create several beneficial tax consequences. 

'^^Thomas A. Coughlin, "Easements and Other Legal Techniques to Protect Historic Property in 
Private Ownership," Preservation Law Reporter, 6 (FailA/Vinter 1 987-88):2034. 


'^^Stefan Nagel, Information, p. 3. 

'^^Ibid., p. 16. State Representative Camille George has proposed (H.B. 176, PN 182) standard 
conservation easement legislation in Pennsylvania. See Preservation Pennsylvania's newsletter, 
Preserving Pennsylvania, Vol. 6, Number 3, 1992, p. 4. Additionally, Pennsylvania's Historic 
Preservation Statue authorizes the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission to "Acquire 
easements in properties of historic, architectural and archaeological significance by gift, purchase, 
devise or any other lawful transfer when acquisition is necessary for the preservation thereof." 37 
Pa.C.S.A. Section 502 (12). 


These tax benefits can offset the loss of value and rights given up by the 
donation. There may be three major tax consequences of conveying an 
easement. The first tax consequence occurs when and if the property 
owner (also called the "taxpayer" by the IRS) can prove a diminution in 
property value as a result of the easement, in which can be applied as a 
charitable deduction against his income to reduce his federal income tax. 
Proving a reduction in property value will entitle the taxpayer to deduct a 
diminution amounting to no more than thirty percent of his income in the 
year of the event, and carry forward any remaining diminution value for the 
next five years at that rate of thirty percent of annual income.^®'' For 
example, if the property owner's yearly income is $100,000, placing him in 
the thirty-one percent tax bracket, and his easement has reduced the 
appraised value of his property by $1 10,000, he could deduct $30,000 from 
his income (thirty percent of his $100,000 yearly income) for the year that 
the easement was granted. Assuming his income remains at $100,000 he 
would carry forward the remaining $80,000 for the next three years, 
deducting $30,000 in years two and three, and the remaining $20,000 in 
year four. He would not be able to deduct value after the sixth year. 
Unfortunately, the passage of the 1986 Tax Reform Act has significantly 
reduced easement activity. Top tax rates were reduced from fifty percent to 
thirty-one percent, which has lessened the impact of easement deductions 

'I.R.C. Section 170(b)(1)(C) and Section 170(d) (1976). 


against taxable income. ^^^ 

Tlie second tax consequence of conveying an easement is the 
possible reduction of estate taxes upon the death of the owner. Estate 
taxes range from thirty-seven percent, if the value of the estate is greater 
than $600,000, up to fifty-five percent on estates valued at over $3 
million. ^^^ Thus, an easement donation can be "...a critical element in 
estate planning and may prove to be the critical factor in a family's ability to 
retain a cherished parcel of land."^''° The key issue here is the easement's 
impact on the property's value at the time of death. Heirs are often forced 
to sell a property, sometimes in the family for generations, in order to pay 
the estate taxes. An easement is a financial planning device that can 
drastically reduce that burden. A land conservation consultant remarked 
that "One posthumous advantage is that 'it [an easement] can keep your 
heirs from fighting' over how to handle the land."^^^ 

This is especially important in Eagles Mere, where not only have the 
values of property increased significantly in the past fifteen years, but many 
of the historic cottages continue to be held by the original or long standing 

'^^Donna Ann Harris, the Real Estate Finance Journal, p. 55. Confirmed by an Interview with Adam 
Schneider, Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, 6 January 1993. 

'^^David A. Rosen and James E. Monahan, "The Tax Benefits of Gifting Land for Conservation," 
The Real Estate Finance Journal, Spring, 1991, p. 42. 


'^'Andrew Johnson, President of Conservation Advisors, Chadds Ford, Pa., quoted in Amy Dunkin, 
ed., "Making Sure They Never Pave Your Paradise," Business Week, August 26, 1991, p. 74. 


families. (Andrew Johnson, President of Conservation Advisors, a land 
consulting firm based in Chadds Ford, Pa., cautions however that easement 
property values can rise over time as the historic integrity stabilizes. This 
could possibly and adversely affect estate tax planning.''''^) Easements, it 
should be noted, can also be conveyed upon the property owner's death, in 
which the terms have been previously specified in the will.^^^ 

A possible reduction in real property tax is the third tax consequence. 
Pennsylvania has no tax relief for easements on properties under ten 
acres. ^^'* Virginia, on the other hand, requires local tax assessors to 
consider the easement for assessment purposes. ^^^ Along with seventeen 
other states, Virginia has adopted a variation of the Uniform Conservation 
Easement Act (UCEA).^^® The UCEA was proposed by the American Bar 
Association in 1979 to provide uniform standards and practices and clarify 

"^Interview with Andrew Johnson, Conservation Advisors, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, 8 January 

'"Janet Diehl and Thomas S. Barrett, The Conservation Easement Handbook: Managing Land 
Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Programs, (Alexandria Va.: Land Trust Exchange, 
1988), p. 56. 

'^"Brandywine Conservancy, Protecting Historic Properties, p. 104. Act 319 ("Clean and Green" 
Act) and Act 51 5 authorized reduced assessments on conserved lands for ten years, and in excess of 
ten acres. As the book points out, the law does not affect many historic facade easements because 
they are usually below the ten acre minimum. 

'''^Virginia, Preserving a Legacy, (1988), Introduction pages. 

'"Va. Code. Ann. Section 10.1-1009 to 10.1-1016 (1978). UCEA. Stefan Nagel, Information, 
p. 18. 


terminology in state easement law.^^^ Because Pennsylvania provides no 
specific legislation for most facade easements, it is uncertain whether the 
Sullivan County tax assessor would consider the property's easement value 
in the assessment. 

Financial Considerations 

Linked to legal considerations and the necessity of retaining a 
competent attorney, are the grantor's financial obligations. The property 
owner should have full knowledge of the costs of granting an easement. 

Donating an easement can be an expensive undertaking. The costs 
are usually borne by the grantor, not the grantee. Although the expenses 
associated with the easement are tax deductible as a miscellaneous 
deduction, they nonetheless can be a major financial obligation. ^''^ Costs 
include mapping, surveying, photography, appraisal fees, and, as one might 
expect, legal fees. In addition, the easement organization usually requires an 
initial administration fee and/or endowment to cover the costs of 
administering and enforcing the easement. William Blades, President of 
PHPC, estimates that one should budget between $5,000 and $10,000 for 
costs, possibly more, depending on the complexity of the property. ^''^ 

^^''Brandywine, Conservancy, Protecting Historic Properties, p. 104. 

^'^Donna Ann Harris, Real Estate Finance Journal, p. 53. 

^"Interview with William Blades, Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, Philadelphia, Pa., 
22 January 1993. 


If the property is a contributing building within a National Register 
Historic District, as is proposed for Eagles Mere, it automatically qualifies as 
a "certified historic structure. "^^° This can be a considerable savings of 
time and money, as the property will not have to individually be nominated 
to the National Register in order to satisfy tax requirements. ^^^ It is vital, 
then, that the proposed Eagles Mere National Historic District be nominated 
to the National Register. Once a property is a contributing part of a National 
Register Historic District, the historic justification work is complete, at no 
cost to the property owner. Of course, the property owner will still incur the 
cost of a survey, appraiser, legal advice, and other expenses required by the 
grantee organization. 

The second major cost consideration is the cost of the appraiser. 
Although the valuation process will be discussed in great detail below, the 
property owner should be aware of the costs associated with appraising a 
property. William Blades recommends budgeting $1,000 to $3,000 and 
more, depending on the property. ^^^ The IRS requires the property to be 
appraised, however, it does not set minimum standards for qualifying an 

'®°A "certified historic structure" is defined in section 48(g)(3) and section 1 .48-1 2(d)(7), Income 
Tax Regs. 

'^'Interview with Sam Harris, Kieran, Timberlake, and Harris, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19 April 
1993. Sam Harris, an architect, estimated the cost to hire a professional historian to complete the 
work necessary to nominate a cottage in Eagles Mere to the National Register would be approximately 

'^^Ibid. According to William Blades, this figure is also a good estimate for legal costs. Grace Gary, 
Executive Director of Preservation Pennsylvania, also uses this figure for environmental audits. 


appraiser. To help avoid IRS scrutiny, appraisers should be members of 
prominent professional organizations, three of which are the American 
Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (M.A.I. ), the American Society of 
Appraisers (A.S.A.), or the Society of Real Estate Appraisers (S.R.E.A.).^^^ 
Appraisal expenses can be deducted if submitted as part of the easement's 
endowment costs, which will be discussed below. ^^* 

The last major cost associated with donating easements are the 
grantee organization's administrative fee and/or endowment. Enforcing a 
facade easement program is an expensive undertaking. In creating an 
easement, the organization must conduct building inspections, consult with 
owners, evaluate the property, and pay legal fees. Once the easement is 
granted, administration involves yearly property inspections by competent 
historic building professionals, communication with the property owner, 
deed research (to determine if property has been sold), and the costs of 
providing assistance to the owner on such issues as the property's 
restoration, alteration, damage, deterioration, and other issues. Should the 
property owner violate the deed, costly legal counsel may be necessary to 
remedy the situation. Once the deed is granted, administration will continue 

In order to finance initial and long-term costs, some organizations 

^^^Thomas A. Coughlin, Preservation Law Reporter, p. 2038. 

^^''Interview with Robert Shusterman, Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 27 January 1993. 


charge an administration fee, while others require an endowment, often in 

addition to the fee. Each expense is tax deductible. The PHPC charges one 

half to one percent of the current market value of the property, in addition to 

the legal, administrative, and professional costs necessary to create the 

easement. ^^^ In addition to the initial set-up costs (excluding legal fees) 

Preservation Pennsylvania requires an endowment of ten percent of the 

property's market value. ^^^ The Brandywine Conservancy bases its 

endowment on: 

"the complexity of the easement, other easements in the area, 
the size of the property, and a projection of staff time that will 
be required to administer, monitor, and enforce the easement 
on an annual basis in perpetuity. "^^^ 

Any prudent easement organization must consider these expenses when 

establishing an endowment. 

The total costs involved in creating an easement could offset the tax 

benefits in granting the easement. Property owners should carefully weigh 

these decisions before beginning the process. Other costs the property 

owner must consider is the expense of maintaining the property as set-forth 

in the deed, and the potential loss of opportunity cost of redeveloping or 

altering the property. A person "must want to do it," says Robert 

'^^Interview with William Blades, PHPC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 22 January 1993. 

'®®lnterview with Grace Gary, Preservation Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1 1 January 

'®'The Brandywine Conservancy, "Conservation Easements," Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, undated. 


Shusterman, a Philadelphia lawyer who specializes in preservation law and 
legal counsel for PHPC/^^ Thus, a tax deduction should not be the 
primary motivation for granting an easement. A property owner must be 
prepared to spend considerable amounts of money. However, since much, if 
not all of these costs can be deducted, the money spent is not unlil<e a 
charity onto oneself. The building is preserved, taxes may be reduced, and 
the cost of creating the easement is deducted from the owner's income. 

Easement Valuation 

The conveyance of a preservation easement can generate a charitable 
event and a subsequent deduction of income taxes. The value of that 
deduction is based, for the most part, on the difference between the 
appraised fair market value of property before the easement is granted and 
the appraised estimate of the value of the property after the easement is 
granted. The amount of value placed on this difference has been the subject 
of numerous court cases heard in Federal Tax Court. The higher the value, 
the larger the charitable deduction. This issue is important to taxpayers, for 
it determines the amount of financial benefit deriving from the easement 
donation. The lower the benefit, the less incentive the property owner has 
to grant an easement, as the 1986 Tax Reforms have demonstrated. 

This section outlines the valuation issue and the legal and tax 

'Interview with Robert Shusterman, Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 22 January 1993. 


considerations which may affect property owners in Eagles IVIere. Its intent 
is to demonstrate that the laws affecting valuation should not deter property 
owners from granting easements in Eagles Mere, but should, in fact, make 
their use attractive. The section begins with a description of the valuation 
process, followed by a section outlining legal cases relevant to Eagles Mere. 

Legal challenges usually occur when the IRS determines that the 
taxpayer/property owner has placed too high a value on the easement, in 
order to claim a significant reduction of his or her income taxes. Because 
the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to demonstrate the validity of this 
value, the taxpayers are usually the plaintiffs in Federal Tax Court. ^^^ 

Allowing charitable deductions by the IRS for easement donations is a 
relatively recent concept. In 1964, the IRS recognized charitable deductions 
for scenic easements. ^^° The Tax Reform Act of 1976 recognized 
charitable deductions for easements given on historic buildings for 
"conservation purposes. "^^^ The 1980 Tax Treatment Extension Act 
codified easement regulations, making permanent the previous Acts' 
easement provisions, and set a national standard for qualifying 

'^^Federal Tax Court is an agency court administered by the IRS for the sole purpose of hearing and 
litigating tax actions. 

'5°Revenue Ruling 64-205 (1964). 

^^'Tax Reform Act of 1976, as cited in Brandywine Conservancy, Protecting Historic Properties, 
p. 102-103. 


properties. ^^^ By 1984, however, Congress began examining the issue of 

charitable contributions as part of a major tax reform movement. Of 

particular concern to the Congress was the ability of the taxpayer to deduct 

the appreciated value of property. It noted in 1984 that: 

"The Congress recognized that the tax benefits provided to 
taxpayers who contribute appreciated capital-gain property to 
charities create opportunities for overvaluations because the 
owner is entitled to deduct the fair market value of the 
property, but does not realize taxable gain equal to the 
appreciation. One way to reduce these opportunities to 
overvalue would be to eliminate the advantage that charitable 
gifts of appreciated property have over gifts of cash."^^^ 

Because the Congress realized the significant value of property donations to 

charitable organizations. Congress attacked the problem in two other areas. 

First, it created Substantiation Requirements for "Deductions in excess of 

$5,000 for certain charitable contributions of property made after December 

31, 1984."^^'* The substantiation requirements provided that the taxpayer 

must provide the IRS with substantiation of three items when claiming an 

easement deduction. First, the donor must obtain a "qualified appraisal"; 

second, the donor must attach a "fully completed appraisal summary" to the 

donor's tax return; and third, the donor must maintain certain specified 

'"Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1980, Regulations codified in IRC Section 170(h), 2055(f) and 

'^^Joint Comm. on Taxation, 98th Congress, 2nd sess., General Explanation of the Revenue 
Provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, p. 503, quoted in Stephen J. Small, The Federal Tax 
Law of Conservation Easements, (Bar Harbor, Me.: Land Trust Exchange, 1986), p. 19-1. 

'""Req. Sec. 1 .1 70A-1 3T(c)(1 ). 


records concerning the gift.^^^ 

The Congress also attacked the overvaluation problem by establishing 

an overvaluation penalty under Code Section 6659(f). The penalty applies if 

the valuation clainned by the taxpayer is 150 percent or nnore of the correct 

valuation. The penalty amounts to a payment of thirty percent of the 

additional tax liability attributable to a valuation overstatement.^^® 

Stephen Small gives this widely quoted example: 

"...assume a taxpayer claims on the tax return that the fair 
market value of property donated to a charity is $100,000. 
Assume further that, on audit, the correct value is determined 
to be $50,000, and that as a result of the lower deduction, the 
taxpayer owes the government an additional $20,000 in tax. 
The valuation claim on the return ($100,000) is more than 
150% of the correct valuation (150% of $50,000 is $75,000), 
so the penalty applies. The penalty, which is not deductible is 
30% of $20,000 (the additional tax due), or $6,000."'^^ 

The IRS can waive this penalty if the taxpayer can meet two conditions. 

First, the taxpayer must show that there was "...a reasonable basis for the 

claimed valuation and that the claim was made in good faith. "^^^ Second, 

the IRS must determine that "...the claimed value was based on a qualified 

appraisal by a qualified appraiser, and that, in addition to obtaining the 

appraisal, the taxpayer made a good faith investigation of the value of the 

'^^Stephen Small, Federal Tax Law, p. 19-2. Explanation regarding Reg. Sec. 1.170A- 

^'"Ibid., P. 19-3. 




contributed property. "^^^ 

In addition to the aforementioned legislation, otiner events occurred in 
1984 tliat have had a significant impact on appraisal procedures and 
easement case law. As the donation of easements proliferated in the late 
1970s and early 1980s, property owners who granted easements in several 
cities came under severe IRS scrutiny. The IRS offices covering 
Washington, D.C. and Savanna Ga., for example, declared that the value of 
all easements granted in the 1980s would be reduced to zero, and the 
Washington, D.C. office forbade all future easement deductions. ^°° 
Increasingly, easement donors came under audit by the IRS.^°^ 
Preservation officials, alarmed by the IRS' actions and concerned with the 
implications, first held meetings with the IRS; and then, also in 1984, the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Land Trust Exchange 
published Appraising Easements: Guidelines For Valuation of Historic 
Preservation and Land Conservation Easements. ^°^ 

Appraising Easements consolidated generally accepted easement 
appraisal principles to produce a comprehensive guideline, reference, and 
technical manual for all persons associated with the easement process. As 

^°°Richard J. Roddewig, "Preservation Easement Law: An Overview of Recent Developments," The 
Urban Lawyer, 18 (Winter 19861:230-232. 

=°Mbid., p. 231. 

'°'ibid., p. 232 and 234. 


stated in the Preface to the Second Edition: 

"It has become the "bible" in the field of land trusts, historic 
preservation organizations, appraisers, and landowners alike. It 
has been favorably cited in the U.S. Tax Court as containing the 
general principles of easement valuation that guided the court's 
decision in the benchmark facade easement valuation case, 
Hilborn v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 677 (1985)."^°^ 

Appraising Easements outlined a step-by-step appraisal valuation process 

called the "General Principles of Easement Valuation. "^°'* In the words of 

the "General Principles": 

"The valuation process is a concise, logical and thorough 
procedure that should result in a supportable conclusion of 
market value for the property being appraised. The appraisal 
process estimates the value of real property based on its 
relationship to other properties that, collectively, constitute the 
potential market. The valuation of conservation easements as 
partial interests in real property does not differ from the 
valuation of real property in general. However, since there is no 
established, traditional market for conservation easements, 
such interests must be valued indirectly through the Before and 
After method of appraisal. "^°^ 

Briefly, the "Genera! Principles" describe how to value an easement using 

the "Before" and "After" method of appraisal. This method determines the 

property's use and value before the imposition of an easement, and after it 

has been granted. (See "General Principles," Appendix 8). 

^°^The Land Trust Alliance and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Appraising Easements: 
Guidelines for Valuation of Historic Preservation and Land Conservation Easements, 2nd ed., with a 
Preface by Jean Hocker and J. Jackson Walter (Alexandria, Va.: The Land Trust Alliance and the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1990), quote from Preface to the Second Edition. 

=°''lbid., p. 19. 



In determining Before Valuation, the appraiser must first determine its 
"higliest and best use" in its current condition. This includes evaluating the 
potential for continuation of existing use, alternative uses, and the possibility 
of eventual zoning changes. (A change in zoning could produce a positive or 
negative effect on the property's use and value.) Next, the appraiser should 
apply the three recognized approaches to value (income, cost, and 
comparable sales). Finally the appraiser must determine the inherent 
differences between unimproved rural properties and urban and suburban 

In determining After valuation, the appraiser must first determine the 
highest and best use by comparing easement covenants to existing zoning 
regulation and property controls. This step determines how existing 
regulations and controls will affect the current and alternate future uses of 
the property. Second, the appraiser applies the three recognized approaches 
to value (income, cost, and comparable sales). The third step determines if 
there is a "highest and best" use other than the current use of the property. 
If so, the value of the easement will increase. The fourth step cites that 
value of easements are often greater in areas experiencing upward change in 
highest and best use; and will likely decrease if the area is experiencing 
decline. The fifth step investigates the easement's impact on adjacent 
properties owned by the donor. If a donated parcel enhances an adjacent 
parcel, the enhancement must be offset against the reduction in value of the 


easement-burdened land. Finally, the appraiser determines if the donor 
received any compensation in connection with granting the easement. If so, 
the easement value will be reduced by the amount of this compensation. 

A basic knowledge of these steps is helpful when evaluating the cases 
described below and determining how the valuation issue will affect an 
easement program in Eagles Mere. The reader should also note that 
easement valuation cases vary in complexity and issues discussed. The 
cases focus on those aspects which pertain most to property owners in 
Eagles Mere. (A table of cases may be found in Appendix 12). 

Valuation Cases 
Hilborn v. Commissioner 

According to an article in The Urban Lawyer by Richard J. Roddewig, 
until 1984 the only significant case involving easement valuation was 
Thayer v. Commissioner}^^ However, most recent court actions involving 
facade easement valuation frequently cite the case of Hiiborn v. 
Commissioner. ^°^ The case was the first facade easement valuation case, 
and has become a benchmark for determining facade easement values. 

^°^Thayer v. Commissioner, T.C. IVIemo 1977-370 (1977), at p. 1506-07, discussed in Richard J. 
Roddewig, The Urban Lawyer, at p. 234-235. In that case, a disagreement over the annount of a 
conservation easement valuation resulted in the court finding a 30 percent decrease in value of the 
land. (The taxpayer's appraiser claimed the easement lowered the property value by 43 percent; the 
IRS appraiser calculated a 20 percent reduction in value). 

^°'' Hilborn v. Commissioner 85 T.C. No. 40 (Nov. 5, 1985). 


Although no legislation resulted fronn Hilborn, the court's rulings have served 
as a guide and precedent for appraisal method and valuation expectations. 

The issue in Hilborn was the valuation of a facade easement donated 
by a partnership restoring a townhouse in the Vieux Carre Historic District in 
New Orleans. The valuation difference between the partnership's appraiser 
and the IRS appraiser was $69,000. The court drew on both experts' 
findings to reach its decisions. These decisions are important to this study. 

First, the court endorsed each expert's use of the Before and After 
method, favorably citing the first edition of the Appraising Easements 
manual, of which the court claimed to take judicial notice at the trial. ^°^ It 
concluded that the only feasible approach to determine the fair market value 
of a donation where there is no established market (of prior easement 
donations) is the Before and After method. ^°^ The court also affirmed that 
whenever possible, valuations should also utilize the three common appraisal 
comparison methods-capitalized income, replacement cost, and comparable 
sales. ^^° The court based the before easement value not only on current 
zoning and market conditions, but took into account "realistic alternative 
uses higher than current use requires" based upon an assessment of 

^°^lbid., at p. 698 considering both experts testinnony; and at p. 689 regarding Appraising 

^°^Hilborn, at p. 677 discussed in Preservation Law Reporter, (5 Spring 1986):3002. 

^^°Hilborn v. Commissioner, at p. 689. 


"closest in time" and "reasonable probability."^" 

Second, the court agreed with both appraisers that, although the 
property was located in a restrictive historic district, it was still entitled to a 
diminution in value. ^^^ The taxpayers' appraiser, Jared Shiaes, argued 
that the easement created "substantial additional burdens" to those already 
in place by the historic district. ^^^ In addition to the major rehabilitation 
required by the easement, other burdens on the property owners included 
financing concerns, possible concerns among the property's future 
condominium owners, possible sales resistance, as well as the use, age, and 
condition of the building. ^^"^ Based on his "subjective judgement," Shiaes 
recommended a twelve percent reduction in the fair market value after the 
easement. ^^^ Max Derbes, the IRS appraiser, also considered the impact 
of the historic district on the easement restricted property, citing burdens 
such as the easement organization's insurance requirement, its right of 
ingress and egress, its requirement of written consent before approval of 
alterations, improvements, or renovations, and the perpetuity of the 
easement. ^^^ He recommended a ten percent reduction in the after 


='=lbid., at p. 698-699. 

'^=lbid., at p. 691. 


'''Ibid., at p. 691. 

''"Ibid., at p. 696. 


easement valuation. The court agreed with Derbes, concluding that the 
"...additional burdens are, in fact, adequately reflected in the 10-percent 
diminution factor established by Derbes. "^^^ 

Third, the court sided with the taxpayers regarding Derbes' decision to 
factor out the land from the valuation; stating that land is an integral part of 
improved real estate, and it should not be factored out in determining the 
Before and After value. ^^^ Derbes had removed the land value, estimated 
at $75,000, before applying his ten percent diminution factor. ^^^ 

Finally, the court determined that Derbes erred by disregarding 
expenses for rehabilitation and renovation work performed after the 
partnership acquired the easement, citing the commitment by the taxpayers 
to apply certain escrowed restoration funds to this work as specified in the 
easement contract. ^^° The court also found that Shiaes erred in adding a 
separate facade escrow ($46,780), to the twelve percent deduction on the 
rehabilitated property. ^^^ (See Appraisal Valuation Differences, Appendix 
9). Why is Hilborn such an important case? In an article written after 

the case. Max Derbes explained that: 

"The rationale for the Hilborn case ruling was that the evidence 

'''Ibid., at p. 699. 
'''Ibid., at p. 699. 
''"Ibid., at p. 696. 
"°lbid., at p. 699. 
''Mbid., at p. 700. 


to date indicated little or no dinninution in value to historic 
properties already restricted, particularly those in the French 
Quarter. Nonetheless, no owner would relinquish the facade 
rights without compensation. Considering all factors, the court 
determined that the maximum donation that would be agreed 
on between the willing buyer and willing seller would be 10% 
of the total property value. ^^^ 

Derbes' conclusion is most relevant to Eagles Mere. In it, he separates 

historic restrictions from potential change in use: 

"...the Hilborn case has set the precedent for the allowance of 
10% of the total property values at the time of donation for a 
facade easement donation that does not involve a potential 
change in use." [this author's emphasis]^^^ 

There is no historic ordinance in Eagles Mere, and there is no real potential 

for change in use of Eagles Mere's historic cottages. Thus, the final result 

of the case makes it quite possible to assume that the Derbes ten percent 

rule could, at the very least, establish a "benchmark," as Appraising 

Easements calls it, for the valuation of easements in Eagles Mere.^^'* (Of 

course, there is no guarantee.) 

Nicoladis v. Commissioner 

Like Hilborn, Nicoladis v. Commissioner was an easement valuation 

^^^Max J. Derbes, "Facade Easement Valuation Methodology," The AppraisaiJournai, (LVI January, 

^"Ibid., p. 69. 

^^■•National Trust for Historic Preservation and The Land Trust Alliance, Appraising Easements, p. 


case in New Orleans. ^^^ The property under easement was located at 
3000 Magazine Street and was designated an Historic Landmark by the 
Historic District/Landmark Commission (HDLC).^^"^ Alterations to the 
property were possible, but they required approval by and compliance of the 
architectural restrictions of the HDLC.^^^ The sole question before the 
court was the market value of the 1981 facade donation. 

Although the petitioner's appraisers originally valued the easement 
using cost and income methods in 1981, the property was reappraised 
before litigation using the guidelines set forth in the Hilborn case.^^^ The 
building was valued separately from a large lot in the rear of the 
property. ^^^ A second appraiser retained by the petitioner failed to reveal 
any sales criteria for the after valuation, and therefore the after value was 
based on "subjected analysis. "^^° His findings also concluded that the 
historic designation had little effect on the building, even though the 
easement effectively eliminated future development of the rear lot.^^' 

The Commissioner's appraiser. Max Derbes (see Hilborn, supra.), 

^^^Nicoladis V. Commissioner. 55 T.C.M.(CCH) 624 (1988). 
^^^Ibid., at p. 625. 

=='lbid., at p. 625-626. 

^^^Ibid., at p. 626. The lot measured 105 by 105.5 feet and was asphalt covered. 


"'Ibid., at p. 627. 


stated the opposite of the petitioner's appraiser. Derbes claimed that the 
easement had little effect on the future development of the property, since it 
was already restricted by the historic designation. ^^^ 

In a similar ruling to Hilborn, the court factored both sides' findings 
into its opinion. Thus, although it decided the historic designation did not 
affect the property to the extent claimed by Derbes, it also was decided that 
the easement did not impact the development of the open lot, as claimed by 
the petitioner's experts. ^^^ The court sided with the petitioner's estimate 
of before easement value, and added an additional amount of money to the 
final settlement for the loss of development rights in the open lot.^^'' 

The final settlement of the case, however, is most applicable to 
Eagles Mere. "For lack of evidence to the contrary..," a ten percent general 
value diminution was accepted by the court. ^^^ (Both sides' appraisers 
had recommended this figure as well, although each appraiser's basis 
differed.) In accepting the ten percent figure, the court, however, 
disclaimed any relation to the Hilborn ten percent diminution value, or that a 
"10 percent rule" had been established with respect to facade donors. ^^^ 
Although the court disputed the basis for its opinion, note that when the 

"^Ibid., at p. 628. 

"^Ibid., at p. 628, as discussed in Preservation Law Reporter, 7 (Annual 19881:1007. 

""Ibid, at p. 629. 




easement precluded further major development, a ten percent value was 

recommended to and accepted by the court. Relate this to an Eagles Mere 

cottage, where there is relatively little development pressure. Is this ten 

percent diminution factor a reasonable starting point for basing a easement 

valuation estimate in Eagles Mere? It would seem that it is. 

Nicoladis v. Commissioner also reaffirmed the difficulty of comparison 

appraisal analysis, as discussed the Preservation Law Reporter: 

"While agreeing that the facade donation did relinquish part of 
the "bundle of rights" held by a property owner, the relative 
lack of sales of property encumbered by facade donations and 
the unique characteristics of each piece of property. ..precluded 
the possibility of making any general statement as to the effect, 
if any, of a facade donation on the value of property. "^^^ 

If an easement program is introduced in Eagles Mere, appraisers initially will 

face the same dilemma--a lack of comparison properties, and of course, a 

loss of part of the property owner's bundle of rights. It would seem 

reasonable to apply, although there is no rule of thumb, a ten percent 

diminution in property value as a minimum easement value estimate for 

Eagles Mere's properties. As every facade easement is unique, however, so 

too are appraisals. Individual appraisals would still be necessary to 

determine the easement value as it is applied to a specific property. 

A similar case to Nicoladis reached tax court in 1990. The Dorsey v. 

Commissioner decision relied on both l-lilborn and Nicoladis'P^ 

"'Ibid., at p. 627 as quoted in Preservation Law Reporter, (7 Annual 19881:1006-1007. 
^^^Dorseyv. Commissioner, 59 T.C.M. (CCH) 592 (1990). 


"A facade servitude [easement], for purposes of this case, is 
deemed to be the equivalent of a common easement in 
perpetuity. See Hi/born v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 686. 
Thus, granting a facade easement is a relinquishment of part of 
the "bundle of rights" held by a property owner. See Nicoladis 
V. Commissioner. . . " ^^^ 

Part of the judge's value decision in Dorsey was to apply a ten percent 

reduction to the value of the building due to the loss of control over the 

exterior, per Hilborn. A second part of the judge's decision was to recognize 

the loss of development rights over the building, using methods generally 

consistent with the appraisal approach in Nicoladis. In deciding this case, 

the judge validated court opinions of the prior facade easement valuation 

cases. The judge also warned, however, that a "strict mechanical 

application" of the Before and After method will not always aid in 

determining the value of a facade easement. ^'*° The judge based this 

reasoning on the fact that valuation "is not a precise science," and that 

facade easements, unlike open space easements, involve the control of the 

exterior of a building, and the relinquishment of property rights regarding this 

control, and are thus difficult to value. ^"^^ 

Losch V. Commissioner 

Loscii V. Commissioner is important because it presents three major 

"'Ibid., at p. 598. 
2^°lbid., at p. 601. 


issues about which Eagles Mere property owners considering easennents 

should be aware. ^'*^ The case involved a fair market value dispute over a 

scenic/open space/architectural facade easement. Although the details of 

the case are not relevant here, the IRS (Commissioner) held that the 

petitioner's appraisal of the easement was too high, and the court agreed. 

The first issue was of a procedural nature regarding burden of proof. 

Responding to the petitioner's claim that the deficiency notice against them 

was "naked and without foundation," the court, by citing numerous cases, 

stated that it does not, as a general rule, "look behind" a notice of 

deficiency to determine the motive and evidence of the respondent 

(IRS).^"^ It further stated that: 

"The general rule is that respondent's deficiency determination 
is presumptively correct and petitioner bears the burden of 
disproving it.^'** 

The issue of burden of proof also emerged in Richmond v. United 

States (discussed below), ^"^ where the court stated that the burden of 

proof was on the taxpayer. Citing other cases, the court noted that: 

"The plaintiffs' heavy burden of proof in tax refund cases is 
justified by the strong need of the government to accomplish 
swift collection of revenues and encourage record keeping by 

^"^Losch V. Commissioner. 55 T.C.M.(CCH) 909 (1988). 
'"'Ibid., at p. 913. 

^"^ Richmond V. United States, 699 F. Supp. 578 (E.D.La. 1988), at p. 584. 


Both Losch and /?/c/7/770A7c/ demonstrate the need for property owners in 
Eagles Mere to be aware of procedural issues such as the burden of proof 
when claiming a deduction. 

The second issue in Losch that is important to Eagles Mere is the 

issue of "highest and best use." The court explained that the fair market 

value should reflect the highest and best use at the date of valuation.^*'' 

The court then stated: 

"If the easement would preclude a potential buyer from putting 
the property in its highest and best use, then the property 
encumbered by the easement would have less market value 
than the property unencumbered. Conversely, an easement 
which limits potential uses of a property will have no effect on 
the market value of the property unless one of the uses 
precluded by the easement is the property's highest and best 
use. "2^^ 

The court then explained that the current use may not be the highest and 

best use: 

"However, any suggested use which differs from current use 
requires that such use be reasonably probable within the 
foreseeable future to constitute the property's highest and best 

Property owners in Eagles Mere considering easements must examine the 

^"^Ibid., at p. 585, citing Carson, 560 F.2d at 696 (citing Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 55 
S.Ct. 695, 79 L.Ed. 1421 1935); Higgingotham v. United States. 556 F.2s, 1173 (4th Cir. 1977)). 

^'^^ Losch V. Commissioner, at p. 915. 


^"^Ibid., at p. 915, citing Hilborn v. Commissioner, and other cases. 


"highest and best" use issue very carefully when claiming a value. Although 
it may appear that the highest and best use of their property is a summer 
cottage, property owners might also analyze the consequences of 
winterizing (which often includes vinyl siding), adding an addition, 
constructing an additional structure, or demolition in exchange for a modern 
all-weather cottage (or house). An all weather cottage can produce rental 
income all year long, as opposed to summer-only rental for Eagles Mere's 
many non-winterized historic structures. An economic analysis for the 
highest and best use, information the petitioner failed to produce in 
Losch,^^° could help justify and perhaps increase the ten percent 
diminution factor. 

The third issue covered in Losch was the court's finding that the 
petitioner had reported a value diminution of 165 percent of the court's 
ultimate valuation. ^^^ Citing I.R.C. Section 6621(c), which deals with "tax 
motivated transactions", the court handed down the appropriate 
penalties. ^^^ Penalty notwithstanding, the petitioner was granted a fifteen 
percent diminution by the court. ^^^ 

To summarize the Losch case, property owners in Eagles Mere must 

''°lbid., at p. 915. 
'"'Ibid., at p. 921. 
2"lbid., at p. 922. 
^"Ibid., at p. 920. 


be cognizant of burden of proof, excessive deduction penalties, and tiney 
worl< with the appraiser to evaluate possible future highest and best uses for 
their historic summer property in order to determine the value of the 
easement. This will create the legal rationale and reduce the possibility of 
an IRS audit. 

Richmond v. United States 

A third relevant case to originate from New Orleans in as many years 
was Riclimond v. United States.^^'^ As in Losch, the court found an 
overvaluation of the easement by taxpayers, declared it a tax motivated 
transaction, and assessed interest penalties. ^^^ The property was located 
in the French Quarter and was highly restricted by historic zoning. Due to 
this location, it was determined that its current use was also its highest and 
best use, and, per l-lilborn, as-yet unused restoration costs were factored 
into the before value. ^^^ Applying IHilborn, the court determined that the 
facade easement diminished the basic property value by ten percent. ^^^ 

The petitioners' biggest problem in Richmond was their failure to 
convince the court that their valuation of the easement was correct. The 

^^^ Richmond V. United States, 699 F. Supp. 578 (E.D. La. 1988). 
^^^Ibid. at p. 581. 
2''lbid., at p. 583. 

^^'Ibid., at p. 584. As per l-lilborn and Losch, the government's expert was Max Derbes. 


court based its opinion on the petitioner's lacl< of expert opinion, stating: 

"Plaintiffs did not attennpt to bring forth any expert opinion to 
establish the value of the facade easement. Instead, they relied 
merely on the testimony previously outlined by the Court, 
which was a completely inadequate basis for the Court to 
determine the value of the facade easement". ^^^ 

Property owners in Eagles Mere must be certain to retain qualified appraisers 

who practice valuation procedures which are generally accepted by law 

[Appraising Easements and l-iilborn). The judge's statement to the jury in 

the case of Granger v. United States, the first jury trial regarding facade 

easement valuation, seemed to support this argument. ^^^ In Granger, the 

judge said: 

"Taxpayers who rely upon the advice of experts, as to 
valuation, and, under circumstances in which the experts have 
been given all relevant information, have acted on a reasonable 
basis and in good faith. "^^° 

To help avoid valuation litigation, the local easement organization should 

provide assistance to the donor in locating a qualified appraiser. ^^^ 

McLennan v. United States 

IVIcLennan v. United States decided the inverse question to whether 

'"Ibid., at p. 584. 

^^^Grangerv. United States, No. 87-2455-0 (D. Kan. September 21, 1988), as discussed in Gary 
J. Elkins, Preservation Law Reporter, (7 Annual 1 988): 101 2-1013. 

'®°lbid., as discussed in Preservation Law Reporter, at p. 1013. 

'^^Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation issues a complete listing of recommended 
appraisers, qualified in facade preservation easement techniques. 


the taxpayer took part in a tax motivated transaction, as per Losch and 

Richmond }^^ In McLennan, the defendant alleged that the taxpayer had 

"donative intent" when the easement was conveyed, and therefore had no 

grounds to claim a donation. ^^^ The defendants based their argument on 

the taxpayer's inquiry about tax ramifications prior to granting the 

easement, ^^'^ and the taxpayer's action for reconveyance following IRS 

disallowance of a significant portion of the donation. ^^^ The court replied: 

"In general, the Code permits deductions for bona fide gifts 
notwithstanding the motivations of a taxpayer. ..In order to be 
entitled to a tax deduction, the taxpayer must not expect a 
substantial benefit as a quid pro quo for the contribution."^^® 

Based on the above statement, the court dismissed the defendant's 

allegation of donative intent, stating that the taxpayers moved to the area to 

enjoy its scenic beauty. The court further stated that the taxpayers were 

clearly concerned about preserving their land, and that, as prudent 

landowners, they endeavored to determine the tax consequences.^®^ 

^^^McLennan v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 102 (1991). The case was based on an earlier decision 
in McLennan v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 99 (1991) in which the court determined that the easement 
organization in question by the defendant was, in fact, a charitable organization and qualified to hold 
plaintiff's easement. (First McLennan, at p. 1 07-1 08. This in and of itself is important for Eagles Mere 
property owners considering easements. They need to be certain as to the intent of the easement 

^"McLennan v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 102 (1991), at p. 103. Claim based on 26 U.S.C. (1976 
Ed.) Section 170. 


='^lbid., at p. 105. 

=^^lbid., at p. 106, citing Siieppard v. United States, 176 Ct.CI. 244, 361 F.2d 972 (1966). 

^^'Ibid., at p. 106. The court also found for the taxpayers regarding the easement value. 


McLennan, like Richmond, is important to the easement issue because 

it demonstrates close scrutiny by the courts and the IRS over the intent of 

the easement. The donation should not be based on an equal return or 

necessarily a substantial return in value or benefit. 

"If a payment proceeds primarily from the incentive of 
anticipated benefit to the payor beyond the satisfaction which 
flow from the performance of a generous act, it is not a 

For a property owner in Eagles Mere, inquiry is prudent and necessary. 

Action based on quid pro quo financial expectations, however, will not be 

sanctioned by the IRS. 

Rome I, Ltd. v. Commissioner 

Rome 1^^^ is relevant to owners of commercial property in Eagles 
Mere. Based on Rome I's ruling, if a commercial property owner wishes to 
take advantage of both investment tax credits and easement value 
deductions, he will suffer a recapture of a portion of tax credit. In the case, 
the main question before the court was whether the taxpayers must 
recapture a portion of the rehabilitation tax credit it had received for 
restoration work on its building upon conveyance of the easement. ^^° The 

^^^Harold De Jong, 36 T.C. 896 (1961) at 899, affirmed 309 F.2d 373 (9th Cir., 1962), quoted 
in Stephen J. Small, The Federal Tax Law of Conservation Easements, p. 17-8, regarding the "Quid 
Pro Quo" Rule, Reg. Sec. 14(h)(3)(i). 

^^^Rome I, Ltd. V. Commissioner, 96 T.C. No. 29 (J 99 7). 
"°lbid., at p. 698. 


court agreed with the respondent, who cited Rev. Rul. 89-90, which rules 


"...the donation of a "qualified conservation contribution" under 
section 170(h)(1) constitutes a partial disposition of the 
underlying real property under section 47(a), triggering 
recapture of a portion of the rehabilitation tax credit. "^^^ 

The court found that a disposition "means to transfer or otherwise relinquish 

ownership of property. ^''^ The court therefore found that conveyance of 

an easement is a disposition, and the taxpayer is prohibited from "double 

deductions" on their income tax.^''^ In summary, Rome I means that 

taxpayers cannot claim investment tax credits and facade easement 

deductions. Because the recapture period is five years, an owner of a 

commercial building utilizing investment tax credits should wait five years 

before granting an easement. ^^"^ 

Final Remarks about Easement Valuation 

The preceding sections outlined problem associated with the valuation 
issue. In examining documents for Chapter Two, the valuation problem 
seemed ubiquitous. The tax incentives for easement preservation should not 

^^'Ibid., at p. 701. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Section 47, "There is recapture of 
a portion of the rehabilitation tax credit upon the conveyance of a facade easement, by means of either 
a sale of a gift." 

"'Ibid., at p. 704. 


"''Rome I, as discussed by Robert W. Wood, "Charitable Contributions of Property," The Journal 
of Real Estate Taxation, Fall, 1991. p. 66. 


be overlooked: It is doubtful that the use of easements as a facade 
preservation tool could succeed without their inherent tax benefits. 
However, legitimate concern over the possibility of an audit and penalties for 
over-valuation should also not be underestimated. If the donation of an 
easement remains shrouded in mystery and fear, why donate? 

The facade easement cases above were cited because they form the 
basis for current valuation technique and court decision. In the recent 
facade valuation case of Griffin v. Commissioner (1989), the valuation 
principles established in Tfiayer, IHilborn, Symington/'^ Fannon,^^^ and 
other cases were cited to determine the value of the easement (often ten 
percent) and the rationale for establishing that figure, as well as to establish 
penalties overvaluation. ^^^ In Griffin, the judge admitted, "We have no 
magic wand with which to divine the 'true' value of the easement in 
question. "^^^ This admission is not unlike that expressed by the court in 
other valuation cases. Although the judge in Griffin found a twenty percent 
diminution in value, the petitioner was still penalized for overvaluation from 
the original claim. ^^^ Hence, there is no entitlement to any pre-determined 

^''^ Symington v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 892 (1986). At page 895, court endorses "Before and 
After" principle of evaluation, as per Rev. Rul. 73-339 1 973-2 C.B. 68. and as endorsed by Congress. 

^''^Fannon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986 572 (1986). At p. 2664, court applies "Before and 
After" rule to evaluation. 

^''''Griffin v. Commissioner, 56 T.C.M. 1560 (1989). 

"'Ibid., at p. 613. 

"'Ibid., at p. 613-615. 


value. However, it does seem appropriate that, given the court's history of 
valuation, a ten percent diminution is not an unreasonable starting point for 
properties in Eagles Mere. 

The cases also presented examples of court action, terminology, and 
decisions that, though problematic, are necessary to properly and legally 
determine the value of an easement. Any and all of these elements can 
surface in the easement process. Knowledge of the issues and theories 
behind valuation will enable owners in Eagles Mere to make sensible 
decisions about their property. As the cases make evident, educated, 
competent, and conservative decisions regarding the valuation process 
should help prevent inquiries and problems with the IRS, and encourage 
property owners to seriously consider easement donations. Properly 
informing and educating Eagles Mere's property owners about easements 
will help make the program a success. 

Working Easements 

"Easements are very binding indeed, and there 
should be no sugarcoating the fact. This is why 
they work. "--William H. Whyte, The Last 
Landscape. ^^° 

Easements are one of the finest methods of preservation because 

they, unlike other forms of preservation, preserve the property forever. 

2^°William H. Whyte, The Last Landscape, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1 968), 
p. 82. 


Ordinances often change. Laws are challenged, hard to enforce, or ignored. 
New administrations may enact different legislation or repeal existing 
legislation. Unlike ordinances, "...easements are held in perpetuity for the 
community benefit," regardless of the political climate. ^^^ The property is 
privately held and remains on the public tax roll.^^^ The community 
benefits because the burden is voluntary and on the property owner and the 
easement holder, and not the government or the taxpayers. 

Facade easements are not perfect, however. They are expensive to 
convey, administer, and enforce, as will be discussed below. Tax benefits 
are not guaranteed, and the donor is often the subject of an audit. Times 
and circumstances change. What was appropriate at the time of 
conveyance to the original donor may not be important to that person in the 
succeeding years, or to subsequent property owners. Easement are also 
difficult to amend. Easement organizations are sometimes weak or disband, 
often leaving the administration of the deed in question if not properly 
assigned to another organization. Finally, easements are not necessarily 
comprehensive-there is no guarantee of protecting even the most significant 
buildings of a historic district--and they afford no protection from eminent 
domain. The remainder of this chapter examines some of these dilemmas, 
and recommends ways of overcoming them. 

^®' Donna Ann Harris, The Real Estate Finance Journal, p. 52. 


Due to the voluntary nature of easements, and because a facade 
easement program relies heavily on the existence of a National Register 
Historic District, interest generated by a properly marketed easement 
program could produce the support necessary to nominate Eagles Mere to 
the National Register of Historic Places. It is essential to educate property 
owners that the two ideas actually work for one another, and benefit the 
community as well. A successful, privately administered easement program 
should reduce the potential for Eagles Mere Borough Council to enact a 
restrictive zoning ordinance. Under the best scenario, the Council will 
support the program, assist where it can to facilitate the process, and 
consider the program a valuable component of its local planning effort. 


Until now, this study has focused on the basic transfer of property 
rights by way of an easement. The property owner grants an easement to a 
qualified organization, the costs being paid by the property owner, and the 
organization enforces the easement. There are other methods, such as 
outright purchasing of property by a conservation organization; "bargain 
buying," where the organization purchases property for a fraction of the fair 
market value, the difference becoming a tax deduction for the property 
owner; and the easement purchase. Outright purchase of a property 
requires tremendous capital, and, like bargain acquisitions, places the total 


property burden on the organization. North Carolina has established a 
revolving loan fund which enables a foundation to purchase and restore 
property, before selling the property under easement and using the proceeds 
to pay back the loan.^^^ Pennsylvania has no such progrann. Regardless, 
it would probably be impractical in Eagles Mere because properties are 
utilized, command value, and are not derelict or abandoned. 

"Mutual covenants" are another method of preservation. They occur 
when an organization of property owners place restrictive covenants on their 
property, and sell them subject to these protective covenants. Mutual 
covenants are less binding, difficult to enforce, present no tax 
considerations, and are not necessarily permanent. ^^'* 

Purchasing an easement from the owner creates an added incentive 
for property owners to grant an easement. ^^^ Many land trusts do just 
this. Howard County, Maryland, for example, purchases farmland 
easements on an installment basis, tax free, and allows the farmer to 
deduct, under Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, the difference 
between the appraised value of the development rights and the price the 

^"Interview with William Murphy, Historic Preservation Fund of North Carolina, Raleigh, North 
Carolina, 1 5 January 1 993. Program is also described in The Historic Preservation Foundation of North 
Carolina, Inc. and The North Carolina Bar Association, Handbook on Revolving Funds for Nonprofit 
Historic Preservation Organizations, Raleigh, 1986-1987. 

^^"Thomas A. Coughlin, Preservation Law Reporter, p. 2035. 

^^^Interview with Robert Shusterman, Attorney, Philadelphia, 27 January 1993. Mr. Shusterman 
says that in light of the decreased tax benefits an easement can offer since 1986, a good alternative 
would be for the organization to buy the easement and assume all costs. 


county pays for these rights. ^^^ An adaption of Howard County's plan 
could provide a role model for Eagles Mere, albeit through private sources. 
The ideal easennent program should be relatively simple, quick, and as 
inexpensive as possible for the property owner. 


Effective marketing is vital to the success of a facade easement 
program. One way to attract property owners in Eagles IVIere is an 
easement "escrow" plan. This concept has been developed to encourage 
multiple easements in areas where "hold-outs" may be problematic, and 
where gaps severely diminish the overall impact of the conservation 
area.^^^ Because an escrow plan could be construed by the IRS as a tax 
avoidance scheme rather than a plan developed strictly for conservation 
purposes, creating an escrow plan requires expert legal advice from its 
inception. ^^^ While there are far too many properties in Eagles Mere to 
make this plan effective, it could be used to preserve cohesive and highly 

^^^Howard County, Md., FY 91 Annual Report, Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board, 
(1992), p. 19. The program offers farmers a value for easements, and, if accepted, the farmer 
receives interest on unpaid and untaxed principal for thirty years. 

^^'Interview with Robert M. Knight, Knight Maclay and Masar, Attorneys at Law, Missoula, 
Montana, 6 February 1993. 

^^^Robert M. Knight and Andrew C. Dana, "Coordinated Conservation Easement Donations: 
Problems and a Proposed Solution," Part I, (Draft, 1993), p. 2. An escrow plan must carefully be 
constructed to reduce possible conflicts with the IRS which could occur if the service believes the 
agreement was developed for tax purposes, known as quid pro quo, as opposed to "exclusively for 
conservation purposes" which are interpreted under Treas. Regs. Section 1 .1 70A-14(e)(1 ). (pp. 6-7.) 
This draft should appear in the upcoming issue of The Backforty. 


visible areas, such as Eagles Mere Avenue or the Park. 

Besides tax and preservation considerations, what else would motivate a 
property owner to subject his or her property to an easement? One of the 
most common answers this question is "peer pressure." Grace Gary, who 
heads Preservation Pennsylvania, suggested that if an easement program 
was properly developed, it could become the "politically correct" thing to do 
in Eagles Mere.^^^ According to Virginia McConnell of Virginia Historic 
Landmarks, peer pressure influences property owners to grant easements in 
the highly protected town of Waterford, Virginia. ^^° Waterford has 
protected forty-eight properties with its easement program. The local 
Waterford Foundation has also negotiated an agreement, called the 
Waterford Compact, with surrounding land owners giving the Foundation 
first right of refusal to purchase surrounding farm land at a fair market value 
should it come up for sale. If purchased, the Waterford Foundation would 
then preserve it as open space. ^^^ The Waterford Foundation and 
Compact could also serve as useful models for the interaction between the 
Eagles Mere Conservancy and a facade easement program in Eagles Mere. 

^^^Interview with Grace Gary, Preservation Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1 1 January 

^^°lnterview with Virginia McConnell, Virginia Historic Landnnarks, Richmond, Virginia, 5 January 

^^'Waterford Foundation, "About Waterford," Waterford, Va., 1991. (Mimeographed.) 


The Qualified Organization 

If Eagles Mere is to rely on a facade easement program as its primary 
preservation tool (working with or without the Eagles Mere Conservancy), 
property owners must select and work with a reputable, well-managed and 
well-financed organization, with a commitment to easement preservation. 

Easements are accepted by federal, state, local, or qualified non-profit 

organizations. As discussed earlier, qualified non-profit organizations must 

"...have a commitment to protect the conservation purposes of the 

donation, and have the resources to protect the restrictions."^®^ Today, 

there are approximately 800 qualified "land trust" organizations.^®^ The 

Land Trust Alliance (formally the Land Trust Exchange), is a national 

association of land trust organizations. It describes a land trust as being: 

"...a local, state, or regional nonprofit organization directly 
involved in protecting land for its natural, recreational, scenic, 
historical, or productive value. "^^'^ 

In a survey the Land Trust Exchange conducted in 1989, the 549 land trusts 

that responded had approximately 2 million acres of land under protection; 

and while land acquisition has slowed, easement holdings have "increased 


=^'Reg. Sec. 1 .170A-14(c). 

^^^Interview with Van Smith, Land Trust Alliance, Washington, D.C., 12 January 1993. 

^^''Land Trust Exchange, 1989 National Directory of Conservation Land Trusts, (Alexandria, Va.: 
Land Trust Exchange, 1989), p. iv. 

^^^Land Trust Exchange, 1989 National Directory, p. v. It noted that acreage on which land trusts 
hold easement had increased by 80,000 acres or more than a third. 


Unfortunately, the study does not say how nnany land trust 
organizations hold both land and facade easements. Because facade 
easements require specific expertise to manage them, few organizations are 
organized to hold facade easements. ^^^ PHPC is one organization that has 
been chartered specifically to hold facade easements. Another facade 
easement holder based in Pennsylvania is Preservation Pennsylvania, of 
Lancaster. The location of these organizations presents a problem for Eagles 
Mere. Facade easements require regular monitoring and are "worthless" 
without enforcement, claims Chi! Langhorne, president of the Foundation for 
Historic Georgetown. ^^^ For this reason easement holders should be close 
to their properties. Eagles Mere is approximately three hours away from 
both locations. Although PHPC does hold easements on properties in 
Northern New Jersey, the closer the organization is to the property, the 
easier it is for the organization to monitor the property. ^^^ Fortunately, a 
local conservancy near Eagles Mere is currently establishing a facade 
easement program, which presents a preservation opportunity for Eagles 

The Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy, based in Williamsport, 

^^^Brandywine Conservancy, Protecting Historic Properties, p. 107. 

^^'Interview with Chil Langhorne, Attorney, Foundation for the Preservation of Historic Georgetown, 
Washington, D.C., 19 January 1993. 

^^^Interview with David Shields, Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, 7 January 


Pa. was incorporated in April, 1990 and currently has a full time staff and 
over 400 mennbers.^^^ In addition to protecting natural lands, the 
Conservancy is also interested in protecting historic buildings, according to 
its executive director, Chris Herrnnan.^°° Herrman believes that 
Williamsport's proxinnity (forty miles), and the idea of using a local 
conservancy, as opposed to a government program, could help support an 
easement program in Eagles Mere.^°^ The growing reputation of the 
Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy and its professional and experienced 
management make it the most likely candidate to administer an easement 
program in Eagles Mere. The Conservancy's growing mission to protect 
historic properties, and, according to Herrman, an interest in working in 
Eagles Mere, could enable this study's easement recommendation to become 
a reality. ^°^ Before this occurs, however, the organization must be 
prepared to create, introduce, market, manage, and enforce an easement 
program specifically tailored to Eagles Mere's architecture, landscape, 
history, and most importantly, to its property owners. 

^^^Interview with Christopher T. Herrman, Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy, Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania, 22 January 1 993. Based on the 1989 National Directory of Conservation Land Trusts. 
the average land trust membership in Pennsylvania is 1,970; the mean is 340. 





The Easement Deed 

The official medium for an easement is a deed. This deed, which is 

often drafted from a generic "boiler plate," incorporates the organization's 

goals and the grantor's site specific details of his or her property. The 

Brandywine Conservancy structures the easement document into the 

following three major parts:^°^ 

1. Statement of facts: 

Who--statements of who the grantor and grantee are; 

When— the terms of the easement, date of execution; 

Where-location of property, legal description; 

What--type of easement (facade, interior, part of conservation 
easement); defines all architectural features to be covered in 
the easement, including improvements and alterations; includes 
drawings and photos; 

How— explains how the easement qualifies as a "conservation 
purpose"; includes information on historic nature of 
building, including historic certification. 

2. Restrictions and Duties: 

Restrictions-include requirements that describe what the 
property owner may or may not do, so as to protect the 
property's historic or architectural integrity. May cover 
construction, alteration, additions, use, subdivisions, new 
structures, dumping, signage, quarrying, etc; 

Duties-maintain the property in good repair; repair 
property in the event of damage, deterioration, or wear and 
tear; restoration if applicable. 


Brandywine Conservancy, Protecting Historic Properties, pp. 1 10-1 15. 


3. Provisions for Enforcement: 

Creates a formal system of inspection necessary to enforce 
easement. Discusses violation procedures, including court 
injunction requiring restoration of damages or alteration 
resulting from violation at owners expense, or the ability 
of the organization to perform the necessary restoration at 
the owner's expense. Brandywine Conservancy requires a 
right of first refusal if land is to be sold, and sets 
provisions for notification. Protects property owner by 
describing assignment of easement to another qualified 
organization should the grantee fail to meet its 
obligations. The deed also establishes a restricted 
endowment fund for enforcement expenses and legal costs. 

(See the Brandywine Conservancy's Sample Easement, Appendix 10; and 

Sample PHPC Easement, Appendix 11). 


"The proper enforcement of an easement is a key to its 
effectiveness. "^°'* Although the burden is on the land owner to uphold the 
provisions of the easement, the burden of enforcement is on the grantee 
organization. A p/'ope/'// drafted easement is essential for enforcement. ^°^ 

^""Ibid., p. 114. 

^°^See Racine v. United States, 858 F.2d. 506 (9th Cir. 1988), at p. 509. Court allows 
construction of dude ranch buildings on land covered by easennent held by the U.S. governnnent 
because "the [government's] draftsnnan cited the regulation instead of expressly identifying the type 
of additional structures that would be permitted if the landowner elected to operate a dude ranch." 

See Parkinson v. Board of Assessors of Medfield, 395 Mass. 643, at p. 645. "We conclude that the 
easement is invalid, not because it is prohibited by statue, but because its terms are so vague that it 
precludes any meaningful identification of the servient estate." 

See Historic Green Springs, Inc., v. Bergland, 497 F. Supp. 839 (1980), at p. 857. Court invalidated 
scenic easements because the landmark status of the structures were invalid. 


There are many reasons property owners fail to abide by the easennent, 

including economic factors, broadly defined guidelines, ignorance, perceived 

non-financial value of the easement, and "life cycles" of the land 

owners. ^°® Many persons interviewed for this study indicated future 

problems may result from new owners of easement-restricted property who 

may not share the spirit of preservation or intent of the easement that the 

original grantors did. While subsequent owners receive no income tax 

benefits, they should benefit from the knowledge that their property has 

been properly maintained as a result of the easement, which perhaps will 

increase in value over time as a result. (Subsequent owners also acquire a 

property that may cost less due to the easement, has lower property taxes, 

and may present estate tax benefits.) 

Enforcement may indeed be more of an art than a science. To 

paraphrase PHPC's William Blades: 

"....To be effective, PHPC must be serious about enforcement, 
but reasonable. It must understand that although easements 
are forever, things change. Real estate changes. Technology 
changes. In the current economic climate, for instance, PHPC 
must be practical in dealing with developers of easement 
restricted properties..."^"'' 

This realistic, tough but flexible approach has, according to Blades, made 

^°®lnterview with James R. Zinck, National Park Service, Green Springs National Historic Landmark 
District, Louisa, Virginia, 14 January 1993. Green Springs has approximately 14,000 acres under 
easement. The term "life cycles" refer to periods of a land owner's life when their land becomes more 
valuable to them for development purposes than conservation purposes. 

^"'Interview with William Blades, Philadelphia Historic Development Corporation, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, 22 January 1993. 


PHPC's inspection and enforcement program one of the best in the 
nation. ^°^ 

Violations do occur. Unlike valuation cases, however, there is little 
case law to guide the courts. According to Stefan Nagel, attorney with the 
National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Donna Ann Harris, formerly of 
PHPC and now president of Lower Merion (Pa.) Historic Trust, most actions 
are settled out of court and never reach the litigation stage. ^°^ One recent 
case, however, was heard in the D.C. Superior Court in December, 1991. In 
The Foundation for the Preservation of Historic Georgetown v. Sagalyn, the 
plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief against Louise and Arnold 
Sagalyn, property owners, to prevent the defendants from constructing an 
addition to their Georgetown house. ^^° 

The case is described in an article by Richard C. Nettler in the 
February 1992 edition of Preservation Law Reporter, and is the basis for the 
following discussion.^" In the Georgetown case, the Sagalyn's property, 
located in the Old Georgetown Historic District, had been placed under 
easement by the former owners. In March, 1989, the Sagalyns, wishing to 


^°^lnterview with Stefan Nagel, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C, 30 
March 1993; and Interview with Donna Ann Harris, Lower Merion Historic Trust, Ardmore, 
Pennsylvania, 30 March 1993. 

^^°The Foundation for the Preservation of Historic Georgetown v. Sagalyn, No. 90-CA1 01 64 (D.C. 
Super. Ct. Dec. 12, 1991), as cited in "Court Enjoins Property Owner From Violating Conservation 
Easement," Preservation Law Reporter, 11 (February 1 992):1028-1033. 



build an addition, requested design approval fronn the Foundation.^^^ The 

Foundation denied their request because the easennent did not permit the 

extension of the residence into present open space, nor the erection of 

additional structures, nor was it compatible with the historic district. ^^^ 

The Sagalyns then applied for and received a building permit from the 

District of Columbia. (The District at that time had no laws requiring the 

permitting agencies to consider easements. l^^'^ Suit was then brought by 

the Foundation. Although there was an additional issue regarding the 

easement's restrictions on subdividing the property, the court only focused 

on whether the proposed addition itself violated the terms of the 

conservation easement. 

The Preservation Law Reporter stated that the court believed: 

"The conservation easement clearly and unambiguously 
prohibits the erection of structures on the historic property and 
any extension of the residence into present open space. .."^^^ 

While the Sagalyns argued the terms of the easement, the Foundation 

argued that the easement's intent was: 

" preserve and maintain the historic property, conserve all 
open space associated with the property, and to preserve the 
streetscape within Old Georgetown as represented by the 

=^=lbid., at p. 1028. 

= '=lbid., at p. 1029. 


"'"Ibid., at p. 1030. 


existing Old Georgetown structures. "^^^ 

The Foundation then urged the court to grant it a sunnmary judgnnent, 

stating that, in light of the Uniform Conservation Easennent Act in the 

District of Columbia (D.C. Code Section 45-2601(1)): 

"Once a protected structure is permitted to be altered, in 
violation of a conservation easement, the public policies 
identified in the Conservation Easement Act are lost. 
Conservation easements are only effective as a public 
mechanism of preservation if they are strictly enforced." 

The Foundation further argued that because granting easements created 

charitable deductions allowed by the IRS, public policy on easements must 

ensure that the provisions of easements are upheld. ^^^ Since the IRS does 

not grant deductions unless grantors and future property owners are 

prohibited from (in this case) altering the historically important structure, not 

only must the provisions be upheld, but the Foundation (in this case) has the 

right to enforce the provisions. ^^^ 

The Sagalyns had also attempted to prove the Foundation had waived 

its right to object to the violations, and that the Foundation was equitably 

estopped from enforcing the easement. ^^° In each case, the burden of 


'"Ibid., at p. 1031. 

=^«lbid. at p. 1031. 

''°lbid., at p. 1032. 


proof was on the Sagalyns, which they were unable to prove. ^^^ 

In summary, the court agreed with the Foundation by enjoining the 
Sagalyns from constructing an addition to their residence. It held the burden 
of proof is on the property owner to challenge the intent of the easement. It 
appears, then, that the court was upholding the specific terms of the deed, 
as it would an ordinary contract dispute. It is too early to determine if this 
case will have any effect on enforcement of other easements, but all 
property owners considering easements should be aware of the court's 


The easiest way to mitigate or avoid litigation, aside from drafting a 
precise easement document, is constant and effective communication. The 
Brandywine Conservancy takes a proactive role with its property owners. 
According to David Shields, Senior Planner for Environmental Management 
at the Conservancy's Environmental Management Center, the key to a 
successful easement program is to stay in constant contact with the 
owners, develop a good relationship, and "put out fires before they 
start. "^^^ By working with property owners and providing assistance on 
technical, environmental, restoration, and historic interpretation, the 


^^^intervlew with David Shields, Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, 7 January 


easement organization can lielp avoid violations. Tlnis reiationslnip becomes 
a team effort for the perpetual preservation of the building. 

If communication is an essential aid in enforcing easements and 
averting violations, effective communication is critical at the program's 
inception. In Eagles Mere's case, if the program is not well received from 
the onset, it is questionable whether it will be successful. Broad based 
support and compliance are essential for an easement program.^^^ 
Easements are a "tough sell" says Michael Brewer, Real Estate Asset 
Manager for the State of Massachusetts.^^'' The easement organization, 
from the beginning, must educate, market, and demonstrate the benefits of 
easement donation so that broad-based support for the plan will occur, and 
overcome skepticism on the part of the land owners. 

The Eagles Mere National Historic District 

The National Register Nomination will be the major factor in ensuring 
an easement program's success in Eagles Mere. Once the district is 
nominated, not only will it be easier to secure an easement, but the 
nomination will provide the historical and architectural justification necessary 
to educate and convince property owners about the merits of preserving 

^^^Interview with James R. Zinck, National Park Service, Green Springs National Historic Landmark 
District, Louisa, Virginia, 7 January 1993. 

^^"Interview with Michael Brewer, State of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, 6 January, 


Eagles Mere, and the benefits of the easement program. The district will 
make historic preservation legitimate by providing the essential historical and 
architectural criteria to the grantee organization. ^^^ Due to the voluntary 
nature of easements, they in turn, should help make historic protection in 
Eagles Mere legitimate. 

Conclusion to Chapter II 

For a facade preservation easement program to succeed in Eagles 
Mere, a combination of important ingredients must occur. First, the program 
must have the solid backing of Eagles Mere's property owners. The historic, 
architectural, and aesthetic message must be effectively designed and 
delivered to the property owners, so as to educate, inform, and generate 
enthusiasm for the concept and the motivation to participate. Second, the 
Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy (an/or another organization if 
feasible) must be prepared, willing, and able to meet the marketing, 
administration, enforcement, and financial demands required to successfully 
engineer a facade easement program. Third, the prospective property 
owners must be properly educated about easements, how they could be 
used in Eagles Mere, and the many benefits and challenges associated with 
granting easements, especially in the valuation process. Fourth, it is the mix 
of these ingredients, an exciting message, an informed and motivated 

^^^See Janet Diehl and Thomas S. Barrett, Conservation Easement Handbook, p. 11, for the 
importance of setting criteria within the grantee organization. 


audience, and a dedicated, reputable, and well qualified easement 
organization tliat will most likely meet the challenges necessary to make the 
"Eagles Mere Facade Easement Program" successful. Only if these critical 
elements come together in a well developed plan will Eagles Mere's historic 
properties be preserved in this manner, and the community receive the 
protection it so well deserves. 

This thesis has not answered every question about preservation 
easements. Because regulations are complicated and ever changing, 
property owners need to retain professional assistance when determining 
whether a preservation easement is right for their particular situation. The 
cases cited in Chapter Two demonstrate that competent legal and tax 
consultation is imperative to help avoid disputes with the IRS. The cases 
also support the feasibility of significant tax benefits that may derive from 
granting easements in Eagles Mere. These benefits include an allowance of 
charitable deductions from income tax, a reduction of the estate tax burden, 
and the possibility of lower property taxes. It also seems likely that property 
owners, at the very least, should be able to claim a ten percent reduction in 
property value once the easement has been conveyed. 

The easement holder, meanwhile, needs to develop strategies that will 
educate, persuade, and then, as simply as possible, guide property owners 
through the easement process. Fair and effective enforcement must follow. 
The nomination of the proposed Eagles Mere National Historic District is vital 


to this process. Nomination would expedite the easement process, and give 
credence to historic preservation. 

Of the many preservation options and strategies available to 
preservationists, local governments, and property owners, the conveyance 
of a preservation easement seems to be the most realistic, fair, and effective 
means of ensuring the protection of Eagles Mere's architectural resources. It 
presents a voluntary, property specific, preservation plan with probable tax 
benefits. Some preservation veterans, like Grace Gary of Preservation 
Pennsylvania disagree, holding that easements are not comprehensive 
because they may fail to attract owners of significant properties within a 
district. ^^^ Others collectively worry that the expense, fear of an IRS 
audit, difficulty in enforcement, and the absence of significant tax incentives 
will negatively impact an easement-based preservation plan like the one 
recommended in this study. 

Most professionals interviewed for this thesis, however, were 
enthusiastic about the idea of using facade easements as the primary 
preservation tool for Eagles Mere, in light of the community's unusual 
political situation. The consensus shared by these individuals was that the 
program could work only if it attracted a lot of people. Attorney Robert 
Shusterman, concerned with the lack of significant tax savings, claims that 
the key to a successful easement program is to "...get a lot of people to do 

^^^Interview with Grace Gary, Preservation Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1 1 January 


it."^" James Zinck, of the National Park Service, believes, as stated 
above, that an easement program could work in Eagles Mere if there is broad 
based support and compliance. This is precisely why Chapter Two stressed 
the importance of a properly developed education and marketing plan. Chil 
Langhorne, attorney with the Foundation for Old Historic Georgetown, 
claims the 1986 Tax Act may not be as bad as one thinks. He explains that 
whereas once people granted easements for tax reasons, today people are 
more inclined to grant easements strictly for preservation purposes.^^^ 

Thus, effective marketing, education, and communication are essential 
to attract donors at the beginning, to maintain the enthusiasm necessary to 
attract additional donors, and to develop working relationships with the 
program's easement donors. As Van Smith from the Land Trust Alliance 
explained, there is a need to "keep the trusts going, and keep them viable," 
in light of the fact that easements are forever. ^^^ Eagles Mere can only 
benefit from a strong, active, and aggressive easement organization, which, 
through these actions, encourages property owners to explore the higher 
levels of historic preservation made available through preservation 

^^'Interview with Robert Shusterman, Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 27 January 1993. 

^^^Interview with Chil Langhorne, Old Historic Georgetown Foundation, Washington D.C., 19 
January 1993. 

^^^Interview with Van Smith, Land Trust Alliance, Washington, D.C., 12 January 1993. 



The purpose of this thesis was to develop and recommend a realistic and fair 
preservation program for Eagles Mere and specifically for the proposed 
Eagles Mere National Register Historic District. The basis for this 
preservation, however, is not easements. Easements are only the suggested 
mechanism for Eagles Mere's preservation. The basis, and indeed the 
reason for creating a preservation plan is to protect the historically and 
aesthetically significant concentration of resort buildings that stand, 
relatively intact, around the well-preserved lake and forest area that is the 
community of Eagles Mere. Had this lake and forest not been preserved as 
it has been for the last two-hundred years, it is doubtful that this collection 
of buildings would have survived, much less have been constructed at all. 

Eagles Mere is an example of continuous man-made and natural 
landscape preservation. I was unaware of this when I began researching 
this thesis. Chapter One was originally planned to present the nineteenth 
and early twentieth century resort history of Eagles Mere, illustrating its 
contribution to the health, vacation, and leisure patterns in American's 
cultural history. Indeed, Eagles Mere is an integral part of this history, as 
made evident in Chapter One. It was this evolution in America's cultural 
history, combined with vast changes in its social and technological 
development, that not only attracted people to the mountain and the lake. 


but persuaded them to return to Eagles Mere, year after year. In the late 
nineteenth and early twentieth century, these people created Eagles Mere, 
the resort, as we now know it today. The benefits of being at Eagles Mere 
Lake, high on a mountain and far removed from the turmoil of the city, was 
important enough for people to acquire land and build the cottages, 
churches, and beach houses, most of which still stand, relatively unaltered. 
The presence of this large and intact concentration of buildings, isolated in 
rural Pennsylvania, is significant, if not unique. The community is worthy of 
architectural preservation. 

The first line of this study's preface reads, "There is no mystery why 
people from all over the United States come to Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania." 
If you have ever had the pleasure to stand at the Edgemere on the south end 
of the lake and look across to the Beach on a clear summer day, take a walk 
on the Laurel Path, or stroll along Eagles Mere Avenue admiring Eagles 
Mere's grandest cottages, it doubtful that you would disagree. What is 
remarkable about Eagles Mere, however, is that these same impressions 
were on the minds of visitors long before Horace McFarland began writing 
about them at the turn of the century. 

In researching Eagles Mere's history, which included the examination 
of maps, a pattern of land preservation, management, and ownership 
emerged which has positively affected our view of Eagles Mere for the past 
two-hundred years. It began with George Lewis' vast ownership of land; 


was solidified by William Bradford's restrictive lakeshore deeds; was 
incorporated as a part of the syndicate's planning and control; was 
strategically placed and planned north of the lake by Benjamin Welch et al.; 
was secured to the north and east by the Eagles Mere Forest Reserve, the 
state forest lands, and the Phipps Estate; was assisted by its rugged 
topography and isolated location; was affected by the placement of such 
entities as the Golf Club and sanitation facilities; was managed by well- 
connected business leaders; was continued with the ownership of large 
tracts of land by private individuals; and has been partially made permanent 
by the Eagles Mere Conservancy east of the lake. This history has been 
placed on a new map, called the Eagles Mere Preservation Overlay. 

The events, people, and natural elements that created this overlay not 
only created the resort, but have been at the heart of Eagles Mere's ability 
to evolve as a resort, and continue to retain and preserve its man-made and 
natural landscape. Had landscape not been protected by the people and 
events that form this overlay, it is possible that environmental exploitation 
and ruin, followed by architectural decay, would have no doubt occurred, 
leaving only traces of what is now proposed to be nominated as a National 
Register Historical District. 

Many of the forces that have preserved Eagles Mere thus far offer no 
guarantees for the future. While it is true that the lake and shoreline are 
protected, as are other areas, nothing, as has been documented in this 


study, protects Eagles Mere's historic and arcJ-iitecturaiiy significant 
buildings. The facade easement progrann recommended in Chapter Two was 
a necessary part of this study, in order to create a fair and effective means 
of preserving Eagles Mere's historic buildings. It is my hope that facade 
easements will become a source of pride and preservation second only to, 
and in conjunction with, the permanent protection afforded to the lake, its 
shoreline, and the Conservancy lands. 

The purpose of this thesis was to develop and suggest a workable 
solution for protecting Eagles Mere's architectural legacy. Chapter One has 
made evident the fact that Eagles Mere is a historically and architecturally 
significant landscape, brought about and preserved by a unique set of 
circumstances, both man-made and natural. The Preservation Overlay, as it 
has been called here, has protected Eagles Mere and has allowed it to 
successfully evolve throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Now 
property owners must decide if this overlay will continue to protect Eagles 
Mere. A properly introduced, managed, and enforced facade easement 
program has the potential to protect Eagles Mere's unique blend of 
architecture and natural beauty into the twenty-first century and beyond. 




Illustration 1, 

'Approaches to Eagles Mere" (Map of Pennsylvania), from 
The New Eagles Mere, advertising brochure, 1910 





Illustration 2. 

Section of U.S.G.S. Map, Eagles Mere, Pa. Quadrangle. 
(To follow) 


B-^yj;Ok:w^'\u REST , 

/ -, 



"" -^ 



Illustration 3. 

Sketch Map 
Proposed Eagles Mere National Register Historic District. 
(To follow) 


Hineral Springs Avt. 

Illustration 4. 

Sullivan County Map showing Jones' Estate, 1872. 



11* c V' 


.r.\ f^ 

/ J V/r, '«. 

1 ■ \ ^\^ 

>X^ ^/^/., 


-..■-, site M'^P' ''"^'^^ 

' • / ///'; 'XVv .^ <^'^"''' ♦; SCHOOL T./' 


•^ '^ 

//fO/« OXf^ 



^^0 i 

1 .Vs.f,in:i ^■'^'r.ol^AjC'HO^t: 
III- » • ■fCM:.o» > 

Illustration 5. 

Tax Parcel Identification Map, Eagles Mere Borough, 1988. 
(To follow) 

















u. J. O -i 



<o «5_ ^_ o_ . . . ui v_ in r~ CM m n .- 
CO in" <o" 00 "^ ^ ^ 05 O)" r-" <D <d in" <o" <o" 





S E 

o «j 

'S a 

a o 

"3 " 

9 O 

s » 

s .- 

•» s 

o o 



Illustration 8. 

Photo of E.S. Chase and House, from Bush and Barbara James, 
'Mere Reflections, page 231. 

CapL E.S. Chase and his home. 


Illustration 9. 

Syndicate Plot Plan, with 20th century notations, undated. 
(To follow) 



r.T'iij^1iEr, i 

L*— — -- I — i""' *i W - ' 

i-A,-r-^>i — 5'~rM ;?..X,-- 

I - ! «> f IS'* I o--liI>- — i 

I '- — ] ^^L-- • ^^r"-' 

f •_-'!-.">^':-. r.!-"-:i<---i-. 
^--: -"-4 r-i •••— -,^r-v 

<■--. v/--'-^! ii 111-- — r = 

v/--"'-« 1 ii i.iL. — r 

,7 .<. / 


'-J ^-/^^^' ;-^ -,■%> -N^-vAV v' 

'*' ' ., -/^" • ^- .\ *A ■■ * ~ •.» ■ ^ ,^^- .; 

Illustration 10. 

Map of "Eagles Mere Lands," Geyelin Estate; 
Also showing Syndicate lots, 1924. 

(To follow) 



Illustration 11. 

Sullivan County Road Map, 1911 
(To follow) 

■jjji Tji f ,'i?tci f TfiS' 

BULLTVAN ^»^„m^^ 

Constructed from actual surveys 
made under direction of the 

by authority of an Act <if Assembly 
approved May 31, 1911 


Robert J SuPir^irN^Karn Villiam D. UKIer /A.ade by 

SrareTiioKWay (i-on\rnissior\er CKief Er\air\6er RalpK G BeryeAiet 

' ^ -^ ■= GusfaVeP SrruiT\ 

MAY 1,1915. 




sy // 


















fPower Plant 
' Muncy Valley 

\ \ 



Illustration 12. 

Williamsport & North Branch Railroad, Eagles Mere Railroad Map, from Thomas 
Taber, Muncy Valley Lifeline. 

READiN* rt. 




Illustration 13. 

Eagles Mere Preservation Overlay. 
(Maps to follow) 

1. Some boundaries are approximated. 

2. Map 13-1 shows Overlay as it would have existed circa 1930. 

3. Map 13-J shows Overlay as it exists today. 

4. All maps oriented north. 

5. All maps are from U.S.G.S. Eagles Mere Quadrangle. 

Blue - Eagles Mere Land Company/Syndicate/Eagles Mere 


Yellow - Private Undeveloped Lands: 

A. Former Geyelin or Syndicate Lands 

B. Phipps Estate/Rainbow Farms 

C. Private Lands in Park 

Light Green- D. Park and Eagles Mere Forest Reserve Lands 

Dark Green - E. State Forest Lands 

Turf Green - F. Crestmont Inn Lands/Conservancy Lands 

Light Green- D/E. State Forest Lands (Former Eagles Mere Forest 
Reserve and Park Lands), on Current Overlay Map. 

Orange - Steep Terrain 

Purple - Farm Land 

Pink - Eagles Mere Golf Club 

Red - Sewage Disposal Ponds. Circles indicate undesirable 


White - Developed Land or other private holdings 


Illustration 13-B '.f'-' \* 

Eagles Mere Land Company -. .-i^--^^ 
(Syndicate) Lands - 1885 ^^' 'CC'" -'" 

Illustration 13-D 

The Park/Reserve Lands - 1907 
Pa. Forest Lands - 1930 

^^J^'^ "- 

\; 1^ I 

Illustration 13-F 

Steep Terrain 
Farm Land - 1885 



Illustration 13-H 

Sewage Disposal Ponds 



ill II : '-. '•:"^~^' \/ '• ' 


'-■- — ^^^' -^- f(Y/f / / //'"4^ li^>'^ ■/ 

T')V\'\ .'•'■'/ , 


Rmtiboivl, c ,.. 
Lake)! 1 7gs''^r~r. 

Illustration 13- J 

Current Eagles Mere 
Preservation Overlay 

Illustration 14. 

Chautauqua Maps. 
(To follow) 


Illustration 14-A. 

Original Mayville, New Yorl< Chautauqua Plan, 1875. 

. ^AVVJL8-E, 

This 1875 map shows the original 
purchase from the Camp Meeting 


Illustration 14-B. 

Mount Gretna, Pennsylvania Chautauqua Plan, 1897. 


Jm Pennsylvania C'iautauquA 


I T 


Ortob»r 1897. 


Illustration 14-C. 

"Bird's-Eye View" of Eagles Mere showing Chautauqua (in foreground). 

From Eagles Mere, Sullivan County Pennsylvania, advertising brochure, 
undated. ___ 

Eagles jvlef^e 

Sullivan County -^ — ^m^^^ Pennsylvania 

On the Crest of the Alleghanies 


'y^'i'.f'^ •''••g^!'^*^^''^'' T'. j/;^'^^^ '.'.-. 




The Lake of the Eagles (m Mii<> uong— k Mii* wid.) 


Illustration 14-D. 

Rendering of Eagles Mere Chautauqua Plan. 

LPi«i£ujooD "criut- 


X ' 



\\ \ 

■^t'"^ I 


/ / ^ 








Illustration 15. 

The Forest Inn and Eagles Mere Park Plan, circa 1910. 
The Forest Inn. 

rjtm^K ttocK 

'"^.^ jjtj>jjiff sr^zna 




Illustration 16. 

"Scenic Walks of Eagles Mere," Trail Map, 1910. 
Eagles Mere Forest Reserve Association and Eagles Mere Land Company. 

Illustration 17. 

"Scenic Walks of Eagles Mere," Trail Map, 1916. 
From Eagles Mere This Year: 1916, Eagles Mere Land Company et. al. 

(to follow) 


DouBi.e null, AMO ro'fsvii.t.m. 



nf V^ieivs 

^P* Those who iu« th» (ccnic wallu ol £»(!•• Mv« 
are eipecUUj urfed to USE EXCEEOINQ CARE 

TO SETTLNQ FIRES. ONi: •molderlnc match or olsu 
clc&rett« caa ruin the beauty and ralue of tha wood*. 

SURE that no Ore Is lett allre anywhere at anr time. 

^P~ The throwln( about o( candy-boies, lunch ramalne 

and newspapers ii a wrong. It Is nntalr. Please 

that all such material Is rolled Into small space and 

-ked under a lo( or a stone out ol sl(ht from the timU. 


^u/pAur C/er 







Illustration 18. 

Borough of Eagles Mere, Zoning Map, 1988. 
(To follow) 


Minimum Lot Size (Square Feet) 

R-A Residence Districts 100,000 

R-1 Residence Districts 50,000 

R-2 Residence Districts 12,000 

R-3 Multifamily Districts 6,000 

R-4 Mobilehome Districts 10,000 

R-AS Residence-Recreational Districts 100,000 

See Appendix 5 for explanation. 


lustration 19. 

Eagles Mere Golf Club, in "The Forest Inn and Cottages," Map, circa 1930. 


;;jb^^^S MERE PARK, PENN/ 

Onltf heUt fiym, 


/• tA<5LES M 

I r^'*^® ^^ 

'— ^ :^ g® 

I- \ ^ 


Illustration 20. 

Hotel Postcards pictured on cover of "Of Cottages and Kings" article. 
From Laura Sici<el Munnma, Pennsylvania Heritage, Sunnmer, 1986, pp. 18-25. 

Postcard Illustrations (to follow), beginning at upper left and moving clockwise: 

1 . Eagles Mere Railroad Station 

2. Hotel Eagles Mere 

3. Forest Inn 

4. Crestmont Inn 

5. Lakeside Hotel 

6. Hotel Raymond 



Of Cottages 
And Kin gs 

by Laura Sickel Mumma 

F':Jt>^■y^ JP^ ■ »JW ^^ w ■ « y^l u^j^J ^i .f ^r»^p■^!^^■*l^ 

^ M'r^^ Cromotrt Inn. C^lo Mere, P«. "'*^-. 




Note: Those listings with the letter "P" followed by a number in parenthesis 
correspond to locations on the Eagles Mere National Historic District 
Nomination Sketch Map, Illustration 3. 


Aerial view of Eagles Mere facing North, from McFarland, Eagles Mere and the Sullivan 
Highlands, p. 12, circa 1944. 

2. Lewis Stone Barn (Demolished 1886), from McFarland, Eagles Mere and the Sullivan 
Highlands, p. 1 6. 


■ ^fuJ^^- ■■■■ ^'■^'^^'^ 

3. Presbyterian Church, Pennsylvania Avenue (1887). 

ii^^i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^;--^--^- -^ 



4. (P5) Lewis Smith Cottage, Laporte and Allegheny Avenues, (front 1879, rear 1803, 
moved to present location 1879). 


5. (PI 3) Beach facing South, from McFarland, Eagles Mere and the Sullivan Highlands, p. 
24, circa 1944. 


6. (PI 3) Beach, facing South (1993). 


7. (PI 2) Beach House and Lockers, facing Northeast (Beach House constructed 1892, 
moved 1910, expanded 1933). 


8. Beach (far side of the lal<e), from the Edgemere boat landing, facing North. 


9. Lake Avenue, showing lake and Toboggan Slide, facing North. 

10. Laurel Path Footbridge over lake outlet, facing West. 


11. H.G. Clay Cottage, Pennsylvania Avenue, facing West (1886). 

12. (P7) Pennsylvania Avenue, facing North, typical landscape on west side of lake. 


13. (P8) R.W. Clay Cottage, Pennsylvania Avenue, facing West (circa 1891). 

14. (P9) Pennsylvania Avenue, facing Southeast, showing modern cottage in foreground 
(1 990); Madeley Cottage, "Sunnyside", on right (1912). The construction of the 1 990 
cottage was the catalyst behind the creation of the Eagles Mere Historic Preservation 


15. Bailey Cottage, Pennsylvania Avenue, facing West (1913-14). 

16. (P10) Reily Cottage, Pennsylvania Avenue, facing West (1899). 


■^'disr^'. '-' 

17. (P11) Eagles Mere Park Cottages, Forest and Mineral Springs Avenues, facing 

1 8. Eagles Mere Park, site of Forest Inn (Demolished 1 978), Mineral Springs Avenue, facing 


19. The Crestmont Inn, facing South (Demolished 1982). 


20. Crestmont Condominiums, facing South, (1984). 



(PI ) Business District, Eagles Mere Ave. facing East (General Store building behind clock 
constructed circa 1885, addition 1904). 


22. Business District, Eagles Mere and Pennsylvania Avenues, facing Northeast (center 
building circa 1902, building on right, 1903). 


23. (P2) Business District, Pennsylvania Avenue, facing South, Sweet Shop, center (circa 

24. (P6) Saint Johns-in-the-Wilderness Episcopal Church, Jones and Allegheny Avenues, 
facing Southwest (1894, A.B. Jones, Philadelphia). 


25. Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church, Eagles Mere and Geyelin Avenues, facing South 
(1905, expanded 1916, attached rectory constructed 1923). 

26. (P3) Emery Cottage, "Altamont,", Eagles Mere Avenue, facing North (1 885, Rankin and 
Kellogg, Philadelphia). 


27. Hartley Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, facing North (1899). 

28. "Shadow Lawn" Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, facing North (1 877), showing insulation 
and vinyl siding process in which shingle patterns were covered, 1992. 


29. Modern Cottage on site of former Lakeside Hotel, Eagles Mere Avenue, facing North 
(circa 1970). 

^'i'^r-.-^^'-^i^^r.^*:--, ^l-i-^iiyi.^^l'^y^~<^' ■■^U.' i^'-i^^^^^O^ 

30. Fitch Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, facing North (circa 1900). 


31. Fitch Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, facing North (1993 Photograph). 

32. Fitch Cottage Interior detail, first floor parlor. 


33. Fitch Cottage Interior detail, mantel. 

.V js,-*;.^* ;>^ i-^--"*. 

34. Ryan Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, facing North (1885, rebuilt 1888). 


35. Vauclain Cottage, "Self Help Lodge," Eagles Mere Avenue, facing South. 

36. Rawley Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, facing Southeast (1906). 


37. Miles, Graff Cottage, "Kitestrings," Eagles Mere Avenue, facing South (1885). 

38. Cottage, Eagles Mere Avenue, facing South, site of Lewis Glass Works (circa late 1 895). 


39. (P4) Munson Cottage, "Aquilaheim," Eagles Mere Avenue, facing South, site of Lewis 
Glassworks (1886). 

laqles Mere, Pa. 

40. 1908 Postcard, showing lake. Steamer "Iroquois," Crestmont, facing East. 




Appendix 1. 

District Nomination Form 
(to follow) 


United SUttt Otpartmtnt of th« Interior 

National Park Sarvica 

National Register of Historic Places 
Registration Form 

ThM term !• tor uM In nomln«tlng or rvqutiting d«f*fmin«llont of •ilfllbillty tor IndSidual prop*ni«« or tflKrtct* S«« \nmnteOort In OUMAwf 
lof ftynpA»an9 NtOonH Rtgiittf Fom» (Ni!lor\»l R»fllil»f Bjil«(ln 16) Compl«t« MCh K»(fl 6y mirtdng "i" l/i tn« ippfopriin box or by *m»nng 
ttM rtet/jmtmi ir*XTn«tlor\, If »n ll»m Oo*« rw i«i*y lo lfi« p(T3p»fry b*r.g <3oe\jm#ni»i3. •nt«r "H'A" ly "rw »p()ftt«6t« " for function, iryi**, mtMrtaJa, 
and trM4 of tiorunc4nc«. tntcr only IM ctlaQorfM ino lubcttteori*! llttM In tri« ln«trvictlon«. For (MlHon*! iCACt uM oontlriuatlori lAMta 
(Form 10-900«). Typ* »I1 tntrlM. '""" 

1. N«m< of PfopT t |[ 

hlflonc n«m# cag-es 

'.ere nisioric ji; 


Olh«f nimes/»il« numbof Eaj^les Xere. Pa. 

2. Location 

ttf«t * number Village of Eagles Mere, the Park, LaJ(e AreT" 

Ctty. town Eagles Mere 


coda PA 

county Sullivan 

90< for publlcttloo 


li) iiDcod«lVVJIl 

3. aaMlflc«tlon 

Own«r»Mp at Prop«fty 
^ pubtte-tecal 
_, puttte-Sttta 
D publlc-radcral 

Category o« Property 
•^ diatrlct 

<. •"• 
_ •tructura 

Numbar of Raaourcaa wttMn Propany 
Contributing Nonoontrlbuting 
22 3 115 building 

i ^ .«M 

/ ^ itructuraa 

^ii. liy Total 

Nam* of rataiad murtlpl* property lilting 


Numbar of cent 
llitad In t^a Na 

rlbutlng rtaourcai sravlouily 

4. Stata/Fodafa! Aqancy CartHlcatlon 

Aa tha daaJgnated lulhortty undar tha Nittonal Hlitwlc Priwrvatlon Ad of 19M, u amandad. I haraby cariify that thia 
LJfwninaUon □raquait for (Jaiafmlnitloo of allgiblllty maala tha documantatlon tttndardi fw raglitarlng propartlai In tha 
National Ragisiar of Hittoric Piicti and mttii tha procadural and proftiilonal raqulramanti »at forth In M CPR Part 60. 
In my optnion. tha proparty Qm««ta Qdoai not maat tha National Ragiitar erltarla. Qsa* oonunutticn thaat. 

Signatura of canlfying offtclal 


Suia or FadartI igancy *nd buraiu 

In my opinior*. tha proparty CIlrTitata [Jdoaa not maat tha National Ragiitar crtiarta. O 8«« continuation *^*•^^. 

SigrMtura o( commantiog or oUtar offletal 

Slat* or ftOmti tgcncy and buratu 

5. National Parfc Service Carllflcatlon 

I. hareOy. canify that this proparty is: 
I I anterad in th« National Ragistar. 

ri S«« conlinuilion (haal. 
CI]datarmjr^«d aligibla for tha National 

Ragiatar. O S«« continuation tttaai. 
Q^datarminad not aligibla for tha 

National Ragistar. 

r~l ramovad from tha National Raglttar. 
Qothar, (axplam:) 

Signtiur* of int KMpar 


•. Function or Um 

Hstohc Fuoctiona (•ni«< c«t«goriM from Instructions) 


D0KESTIC/3l.'ngle dwelling, hotel ~ 

RBCREATlbw/outdoor recreation 
IKDUSTRY/manufacturlnn facility 
REUGIOM/church camp 

Currtni F^^wttons (snlsr csi*gorlM trom instructions) 

HEALTH CAR£/re3ort 

DOWaSTIC/single dwelling 
RSCREATIOH/outdoor recreation 

7. 0«»cf1ptton 

AreMsctiKSI Classificstion 
(•nt«r c«t«gon«9 rrom Instructions) 

Shingle Style 

TOIR Viewrlart 

Mslensls (snisr cstegoriM from >r\structions) 




roof . 


3rick (^ walls, chlmneysj 

D*scrib« present and histoflc physical appearanca. 

NOTE: Please refer to Sketch Map for locations referenced in the below description. 
"P1...P13" Indicates a photograph and the location of that photograph on the map. 
"N1...N13" Indicates a map reference only. An "N" may tie In front or behind lot numbers if 
there was no room on the map for additional labeling. Major locations, such as the Beach, 
are named on the map. ., 

Situated around a natural spring fed lake 2,100 feet above sea level in north central Penp^ylvania's 
Allegheny Mountains is the Borough of Eagles Mere. This small resort community (poerulation 150 
in winter, 1 ,500 in summer) includes the commercial and residential village on thfiC^^acre lal<e's 
south end; the Park residential area on the lake's north end; and numerous cottages around the 
lake's perimeter. Surrounding the lake, which the borough derives its name, are thousands of acres 
of forests, natural sights, and hiking trails. For over 100 years, visitors have enjoyed the pure lake 
water with its sandy beach, cool mountain air, natural forest beauty, and the Shingle and related 
Victorian Style architecture that make up the Eagles Mere Historic District. 

Historically, the Eagles Mere Historic District fulfills National Register Criteria A. Architecturally, the 
district fulfills Criteria C. It contains a predominate number of large late 19th century and early 20th 
century buildings that constitute an architectural mode called the "Shingle Style." On the lake's 
south end and west side, cottages are mainly large wood framed structures, dominated by wood 
shingles alxjve clapboard, large wrap-around porches and sitting areas, towers, and an abundance 
of bedrooms. Many of the commercial buildings and churches on the south end are smaller Shingle 
Style Ixjildings. The Park area contains smaller cottages and lots, primarily built by one builder. 
Here and elsewhere are a large number of Folk Victorian, Craftsman, and Prairie Style cottages. 
Almost all of the contributing buildings are at least two stories high. The district also contains mid 
to late 20th century vernacular resort cottages. There are 232 contributing resources and 119 
noncontributing resources, approximately a 2:1 ratio of contributing over noncontributing resources. 

Eagles Mere can best be described on a sectional basis. The first area to be described is the main 
village, on the Lake's south end: followed by Pennsylvania/Lakewood Avenue (the road that loops 
the Lake); and finally Eagles Mere Park, on the north end. 


Untt«d Stattt Depcrtmtnt of th« Intt rior 
National Park Servic* 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


Soctlon numbof ^ Pago -1 

Overlooking Eagles Mere Lake is the village of Eagles Mere, just south of the lake. This area 
contains the district's oldest buildings, as well as fine examples of Shingle Style construction. There 
are approximately nine retail establishments, three churches, three inns, a community hall, fire 
station, arts center. Post Office, other business establishments, and many cottages and residences. 
The primary building material is wood framing, shingles, and clapboard. Brick is rarely used. Stone 
is often used for foundations, chimneys, porch entrances, and stone walls. 

Eagles Mere Avenue (Route 42) is the town's "Main Street." Arriving from the south, as most 
visitors do, one quickly enters the district's commercial area, at the intersection of Pennsylvania 
Avenue (Pi, P2). Businesses here are located in contributing buildings that have always held 
commercial establishments. Continuing north on Eagles Mere Avenue, there are fine examples of 
Shingle, Stick, and Victorian Gothic Style cottages. Many of these cottages, such as the 
"Attamount" Cottage (P3, 441), hold commanding views of the Lake. On the right or south side of 
Eagles Mere Avenue is a collection of homes situated on a hill. These cottages, including the 
"Aquilaheim" Cottage (P4, 456) were constructed on the site of the Lewis Glass works, and contain 
some of the district's largest cottages. The Outlet Pond is on the district's east side. The Pond 
channels water out of Eagles Mere Lake. 

Moving inland from the Lake are Sullivan and Allegheny Avenues, which parallel Eagles Mere 
Avenue. These streets contain a collection of smaller cottages, homes, barns, and commercial 
buildings. There are two side streets that intersect Eagles Mere Avenue on its north side, and six 
streets on the south side. On the north side. Lake Avenue is the most well known. It descends 
directly to the Lake, and is the site of the famous Eagles Mere Ice Toboggan Slide (N1). Locke 
Eagle Lane contains mainly noncontributing cottages, many constnjcted on the grounds of the 
former Lakeside Hotel (N2). 

The six southern side streets are Geyelin Avenue, Jones Avenue, Laurel Lane, Mary Avenue. Fern 
Alley, and Laporie Avenue. All contain a variety of late nineteen century architecture, including 
churches and newer buildings. The Episcopal Church is located on Jones Avenue (P6, 496). 
Designed by architect A.B. Jones, the building was completed in 1894. It is one of the few all stone 
buikJings in the district. Its shape was possibly influenced by H.H. Richardson's Trinity Church in 
Boston. Laurel Lane contains vernacular cottages, and a carriage house which once housed the 
town's fire equipment. 

Mary Avenue, in the center of town, is a short but interesting street. It contains the Eagles Mere 
Inn, which was constructed in 1887 for A.C. Little's construction workers (N3, 468). Little, a 
prominent builder, constructed the "Altamount" Cottage (P3), the Baptist, Episcopalian and 
Presbyterian Churches, as well as numerous large cottages in the district. Mary Avenue also 
contains the old Eagler Theater (N479), now a cottage, and a Sears and Roebuck cottage, known 


Unlt*d 8t«t«« Dep«rtm«nt of th« InUrlor 
National Park Servlct 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


Section numb«f __!__ Pag* J 

as "The Hathaway" cottage (472N). Fern Alley contains a numt)er of interesting contributing 
garages associated with buildings on Mary and Laporte Avenues. 

Lapofte Avenue is one of the oldest streets in Eagles Mere. Before Route 42, it was the main road 
to the town. It contains some of the district's oldest cottages. Located here is the L.S. Smith 
Cottage {P5, 462). This building is composed of the circa. 1800 Lewis Boarding House (rear 
section), which was moved to its present location after the building's front section was constructed 
in 1879. The front section is a fine example of the Shingle Style. Clad in shingles, it rests on a 
large stone base holding a wrap around porch. Further down Laporie Avenue is the Eagles Mere 
Museum. Constructed in 1889, it was once the Baptist Church (N4 109). The street continues with 
contributing and noncontributing cottages, and eventually out of the district to Eagles Mere's early 
farms. Laporte Avenue also contains the Community Hall, built in 1942 (N464); and the Dewire 
Center, a performing arts center recently built on the site of the former Allegheny Hotel (N4105). 

Pennsylvania/Lakewood Avenue begins in the commercial district where it joins Eagles Mere 
Avenue. It follows the Lake's west side, connecting the Park and Beach areas north of the Lake. 
Here "Pennsylvania" Avenue becomes "Lakewood" Avenue. It continues around the Lake's 
unspoiled east side, before connecting the Crestmont area (N4, 424), and ending at Eagles Mere 
Avenue, near the Outlet Pond. 

Pennsylvania Avenue on the Lake's west side contains large historic buildings and newer cottages 
of all sizes. Traveling north from the commercial area, the first building encountered is the Sweet 
Shop, on the corner of Eagles Mere Avenue (P2, 334). This building, constructed in 1888, has 
historically housed a restaurant and ice cream parlor, and continues to do so. The Village Green is 
directly across Pennsylvania Avenue from the Sweet Shop (N5, 317). A private developer owns it 
and most of the buildings in the commercial area. The Green hosts craft and antique shows. The 
original Chautauqua Bell from the Forest Inn is located here. 

Continuing north, the left (west) side of the street contains three cottages built for the Clay family, 
which traces its roots to Richter Jones, the man who recognized the area's resort potential and 
who's wife gave the town its name. The center cottage (N6, 330) is a large rambling Shingle Style 
cottage constructed by A.C. Little in 1886. making it the oldest of the three. It was once called the 
"Ambassador's Cottage" after the Peruvian Ambassador who used it. The cottage to its right {P8. 
329) is a fine example of refined Shingle Style construction in Eagles Mere. Continuing north, the 
site of the former Hotel Raymond is on the left (N7, 328). Past this site are the historic Bailey (N8, 
176) and Reily Cottages (P10, 175), built in 1914 and 1899 respectively. These cottages are also 
impressive examples of the Shingle Style, with heavy Craftsman influence on the Bailey Cottage. 

On the north end of Eagles Mere Lake is the Beach, and the Park. The Eagles Mere Beach facility 


Un»t»d 8UtM 0«p«rtin«nt of tht Inttrlor 
Nttional Park Servict 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


Section number 7 ptg« _4 

consists of four associated buildings (Pi 2, Pi 3, 157). The buildings surround the natural sand and 
lawn, creating the recreational and social "hub" of Eagles Mere. The Beach House (PI 2). with its 
six boardwalk-connected locker room buildings, is a hipped roof wooden structure that can best be 
described as Vernacular Shingle Style. It was constructed in 1890, with a gambrel roofed rear 
section added in 1933. Two adjacent hipped roofed boat houses supply boating needs to lake 
users. Motor boats are not allowed on the lake, with the exception of a life guard boat, and the 
Launch. The Beach Shop, near Pennsylvania Avenue, has a partial hipped roof, and operates as a 
restaurant library. The Beach, the Lake, the immediate shoreline (approximately 100 feet), and an 
athletic field across the street (N9) are privately owned by the Eagles Mere Association. 

Continuing past the Beach. Pennsylvania Avenue becomes Lakewood Avenue. The landscape is 
natural forest until ascending to the base of Crestmont Hill Road, where there is a row of newly built 
cottages. The Crestmont area (N4) includes many cottages and outbuildings constructed by the 
Crestmont Inn. (It was demolished in 1982.) A condominium building containing 20 units currently 
stands on the Inn's exact location. Of particular interest is the former bowling alley, constructed in 
1904, which today is a one story Shingle Style duplex cottage (N10, 406). The former employees' 
lodge (Nil), constructed in 1926, is now an inn. The adjacent former wash house is a restaurant 

The final point of interest along Lakewood Avenue is the Laurel Path Footbridge (N12). The bridge 
crosses over the waterway that connects Eagles Mere Lake to the Outlet Pond. The Laurel Path, 
laid out by Mr. Chase, closely parallels the Lake's wooded shoreline. Though reconstructed many 
times, it continues to retain the picturesque appearance of its original design. 

On the lake's north end is Eagles Mere Park. This section, begun as part of the Chautauqua 
Movement, and later the Forest Inn, was constructed almost entirely by one builder, C.A. Brink, 
circa. 1902-1910. The Caretaker cottage and two small sheds are all that remain of the Forest Inn 
(N13. 101). The Part< is very similar to the resort community of Mount Gretna. Pennsylvania. Like 
Mount Gretna, it contains small wood frame cottages of similar shape and size, usually two stories 
high, constructed on small tots, and traces its beginnings to the Chautauqua Movement. The Park 
area, however, is flat, with slightly larger lots, less wooded, and its cottages tend to be less 
architecturally detailed. 

Of the Park's 67 cottages, 12 are Shingle Style, while the remaining are a mixture of Craftsman, 
Folk Victorian, and Prairie Style. Wood, including shingles and claplxjard, is the primary building 
material. (Many of Mount Gretna's cottages are sheathed in vertical beaded boards, inside and 
out.) The cottages and lots are generally smaller here than in other parts of the district, however 
they are within walking distance to the Beach. Though compact, the Park is an extremely quiet and 
private area. There have been few major alterations to the Park's cottages. 


Unl1*d States Department of the Interior 
National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


Soction number ^ Page ^ 

There are 13 boat houses on the Lake, excluding the two mentioned at the Beach. All boat houses 
are located on land owned by the Eagles Mere Association (i57-surrounding Lake). Eleven are 
contributing structures. All are constructed with wood, primarily beveled clapboard or board and 
batten. The shingled Boat house near the Footbridge was once used as a boat house for the 
La)<eside Hotel (B1). The boat house at the base of Lake Avenue is the Lake's only two story boat 
house, and one of only two with a water level boat bay (B4). The boat house at the base of Clay 
Avenue houses the district's sole contributing object, "the Hardly Able" (B6). This Worid War I era 
Launch shuttles passengers between the "Edgemere" and the Beach. Most boat houses were 
constructed at the turn of the century. 

Eagles Mere cannot be accurately described without discussing the many walking trails in and 
around the district. The Red, White, Green, Yellow, Blue "Arrow" Trails, along with the Laurel Path. 
were laid out in the l880's-90 s and are still maintained. In addition, hikers can travel down the 
railroad grade to Wenonah Falls, a popular destination south of the district. Nature walks were an 
important part of turn-of-the-century leisure activity, and their popularity continues in Eagles Mere. 
(See the Trail Maps for path and scenery locations.) 

As a resort, Eagles Mere continues to retain the important physical characteristics it has always 
held. AJnnost all buildings are set back off the roadways and sidewalks, which lessens their 
disruption of the natural landscape (P7). Lake front properties are constructed a minimum of 100 
feet from the lake, thus preserving its natural beauty. Few cottages have been demolished or 
destroyed, the large hotels being the exception. Landscaping is minimal, relating to the natural 
tjeauty of Eagles Mere's surrounding forests. Stone walls are prevalent throughout the district. 
Wood construction blends well with heavily wooded lots. Boat houses are small, and are painted or 
stained with dark colors. No private motor tx)ats are allowed on the lake. Trails are maintained for 
the residents' enjoyment. 

Looldng t>ack 100 years and comparing it with the district today, there are three major differences. 
First, the absence of the large hotels. Second, subsequent cottage construction throughout the 
district. Third, an abundance of trees. Before the turn of the century much of the area was open 
farmland, or in the Crestmont area's case, treeless due to a cyclone. Today, there are trees 
throughout the district. Although there are many new cottages, contributing architecture and the 
natural lake setting continue to dominate the scene. 

In the 1970's. there were many cottages for sale in Eagles Mere, and it was questionable which 
direction the town would take. This changed in the 1980s, however, as property owners and 
newcomers made necessary investments in their properties. Today almost all of the district's 
cottages are well maintained, many as rental cottages. Most of the contributing cottages are used 
only in the summer months. With exceptions, the larger Shingle Style cottages remain with few 


Untt«d Stat«t Department of th« InUrtor 

National Park Servic« 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


SactJon numbar "^ Paga ^ 

drastic alterations. Some smaller cottages are receiving vinyl siding. That, along with rear or side 
additions, is the biggest change occurring on the district's buildings. 

Most new cottages in Eagles Mere lie outside the historic area. The district's new cottages are well 
positioned from older buildings, secluded in foliage, or are designed to compliment existing 
architecture, thus ensuring the district's integrity (P9 shows an exception). Pockets of the district's 
noncontributing cottages are located near the Crestmont, on Locke Eagle Lane. Pennsylvania and 
Laporte Avenues. 

Eagles Mere's natural and man-made beauty has changed little in the past 100 years. It's lengthy 
commuting time to large cities and distance from major highways has precluded it from tjecoming a 
year round t>edroom community, or a highly developed resort destination. Because of this. Eagles 
Mere's integrity as a 19th to early 20th century summer resort remains intact. Almost all of the 
significant cottage, religious, leisure, and commercial architecture not only remains, but continue to 
be used for their original purpose. Little has been done to drastically alter the district's original 
man-made or natural appearance. The greatest change is the removal of the large hotels, and the 
continual addition of new cottages. The landscape thus far has been able to absorb the latter. 
Fortunately, the older cottages are contemporaries of the hotels, preserving their legacy, and 
establishing an architectural heritage for all to enjoy. 


t. StJtiwnt of Stqnltlc«f>c« 

CMlifyktg omctAl hu con«kl«r*i) iTv* tlgnmcaoot of V\f prop*rTy In rvUtlon lo other prop«rtiM: 

Qnatlofuly QtttltwM Olocaly 

AppauUo Nationia R^Mar Critarta Qa Qb E]C Qo 

Crtofia ConMj«f«Uon« (Ej(C«p«lont) Qa Qb Qc Qo Qe Qf Qo 

Ar«M of Significanca (antar catagoriaa from Inatnxtiona) Parted of Signmcanca Significant Oataa 



CONSERVATION ~~~~~~~~~^~~~ ' 

Cultural Affliiatipr) 

^^9r»r^l^^ H/A ^"M^TAlbert Charles (Builder) 

SUia significartca of property, ar)d justify criteria, criteria oorttideratlona, ar>d areas and perioda of significance noted above 

Eagles Mere. Pa., incorporated as a borough in 1898, in Sullivan County, is a living example of a 
turn-of-the-century summer resort containing exemplary Shingle Style architecture that dominates 
the dtstnct. Due to its isolated location atop a 2100 foot mountain surrounded by state forest 
Eagles Mere retains most of the character, traditions, and buildings which date to the late iSOO's It 
meets Criteria A. {"...broad patterns of our history...") and C. ("...a type, period, and method of 
construction...") of the National Register Criteria. Eagles Meres history begins with Native 
Americans that originally inhabited the area. This was followed by its industrial beginnings as a 
glass works in the early I800s. Most significant is its resort status, beginning in earnest in 1885 
and continuing to the present. 

Eagles Mere became Pennsylvania's answer to a movement that swept America at the turn of the 
century. Americans escaped the cities and headed for mountain and lake resorts for both leisure 
and religion. Eagles Mere attracted families from throughout the United States particularly wealthy 
Philadelphians. It continues to be a summer resort, retaining its traditional activities original 
architecture, and natural beauty. Unlike other resort communities, such as Buckhill or Pocono 
Manor. Eagles Mere"s popularity was never based entirely on hotels. The Pocono resorts relied 
heavily on hotels for entertainment and recreation, and still do. Eagles Mere bases its longevity on 
its sense of community, the Lake, and its cottage life style, much like Mount Gretna in Lebanon 
County, Pennsylvania. It too. had a Chautauqua. With its hotels gone. Eagles Mere evolved into a 
cottage-based community, which adapted to changing American life styles, vacation patterns and 
geographical preferences. It continues to rely on the Lake, the mountains, returning families' grand 
Victorian architecture, and traditional summer activities that have changed little in 100 years. 

While Eagle Mere architecture and tradition is rooted in the late ISOO's and early I900's the 
community traces its beginnings to 1801. Prior to 1801, Susquehannock. Lenni-Lenape,' and 
Iroquois Indian tribes hunted around the Lake, giving it names such as Lekaumenupak (Sand Lake) 
and Wapaleechen (White Water). These names are significant because they recognize the fine 

ElSee cotiOnuatlon ahaat 


United Stat«t D«par1m«nt of th« Inttrior 

National Park Servlct 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


SoctJon numbor a Pag« 2 

natural sand which covers the north end of the glacier-created lake. It was this sand that lead to 
the community's founding. 

Once part of William Penn's lands, the area was owned by Charles Waistoncraft of Philadelphia in 
1794. He associated with Joseph Priestly, Jr. (son of the discoverer of oxygen), British General 
Gates, and George Lewis. Lewis, an Englishman, was commissioned by the English business 
establishment to buy real estate in America. At a dinner attended by these men in 1794, Priestly 
described the area. On September 16th of that year. Lewis bought the Lake and 10.217 acres for a 
dollar an acre. 

Lewis surveyed the lands, designed a community, and by 1808 operated a glass works using the 
Lake's sand. The community's farms fed its 250 people. Remnants of these farms still exist. 
Products of the Lewis Glass Works are found in the Eagles Mere Museum, while fragments of glass 
and tools appear in buildings throughout the district. The Presbyterian Church (N14, 332) was 
constructed with stones from Lewis's barn. 

The Glass Works era ended in 1829, when Lewis, broke and sick, returned to England. 
Philadelphia Judge J. Richter Jones bought the lands in 1845 with the goal of establishing a resort 
community. The Civil War disrupted his plans. Jones raised a company of soldiers, but was killed 
in 1863 in North Carolina. 

Jones' wife, Anne Eliza Clay Laussat, is credited with changing the name from Lewis Lake to 
"Eaglesmere". Laussat's holdings became the Geyelin properties when her daughter married into 
the Geyelin family. Beginning in 1885, these properties were sold as lots by the Eagles Mere 
Syndicate. Eagles Mere, the resort, had begun! Construction of Eagles Mere's large Shingle Style 
cottages on the Lake's south end and west side began immediately. The syndicate, forerunner to 
today's Eagles Mere Association, bought the Lake and surrounding 1000 feet, establishing the 
principal that no one may own land within 100 feet of the Lake. This rule remains in effect. 

Embley S. Chase, a civil engineer, came to Eagles Mere in 1886 to manage the syndicate's 
holdings and design the town. Chase is credited with creating the infrastructure and many of the 
resort activities that still continue. He laid out the street plan, helped organized the borough as a 
legal entity, designed the water and sewer systems, plotted the Lake's bottom, electrified the town. 
built the first golf course, cut the Laurel Path and surrounding "Arrow" trails, designed the ice 
toboggan slide, began the water sports carnival, and helped design the railroad. With the exception 
of the railroad, all exist. 

Beginning in the late 1880's and continuing into the 1940's, there were five large (250 guests) 
resort hotels. Although all are gone, remnants of their edifices still exist as outbuildings, 


Unlttd Stat«« D«p«rtm«nt of tht Interior 
National Parte Sorvico 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


Soctlon numbof ^ Pag« 3 

recreational facilities, and hotel-owned cottages. The hotel names were the Lakeside, the 
Raymond. Forest Inn, Hotel Eagles Mere, and the Crestmont inn. Vacationers were attracted to the 
resort by the cool mountain air, natural beauty, and the pure lake water. The Lake's sandy bottom 
on its north end became known as "the Beach." It remains the true recreational and sodal "center" 
of Eagles Mere. 

To create easy transport to the hotels, a narrow gauge railroad was built in 1892 from Sonestown, 
Pa It was financed by the hotel owners and relatives of Benjamin Welch, owner of the Williamsport 
and North Branch railroad system. The railroad operated until 1926. Today, hikers walk the 
railroad bed past lush scenery on maintained trails. 

One hotel, the Forest Inn, grew out of the late 19th century Chautaugua movement. The area is 
now known as "The Park", at the lake's north end. It was founded by Benjamin Welch and his 
brother. Reverend Joseph Welch. They joined with the Chautauqua movement to open a camp in 
1896. General James Beaver, governor of Pennsylvania, presided at the opening ceremonies. The 
main meeting hall grew to become the Forest Inn in 1902, when the tent commune became a 
conventional summer resort. The tents were replaced by a planned community of mostly Shingle 
and Craftsman Style cottages, built primarily by C.A. Brink, a local builder. These cottages, the 
majority constructed between 1902 and 1910, remain as an example of the Chautauqua movement. 
and a turn-of-the-century summer resort. 

Notable persons who stayed at the Forest Inn included General George Marshall; John Wesley 
Little, famed artist and teacher at the Chautauqua; and Alvina Krause. the internationally recognized 
theater director. Krause brought artistic genius to the Inn's Eagles Mere Playhouse for twenty 
years, including such talents as Patricia Neal. Jimmy Gheen, Charlton Heston, Jennifer Jones, 
Paula Prentiss, and Richard Benjamin. Cultural events continue in the Dewire Community Center. 
A nationally recognized summer drama workshop has replaced Alvina Krause's troupe. 

The large Shingle Style summer cottages found on the lake's west and south sides were built over 
a short period from the late I880's to the very early 1900's (although some were constnjcted 
earlier), and provide living examples of that popular architectural style. Many are owned by 
descendants of the original owners. As their cottages were going up, some owners were granted 
permission to buikj small boat houses and docks near the Lake. Most still exist. Cottage 
constnjction was accompanied by the building of hotels, commercial buildings, and the 
Presbyterian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, and Baptist churches. With the exception of the 
hotels and a few cottages, almost all buildings still exist and are well maintained. Many buildings 
were built by A.C. (Albert Charles) Little and his son Frank, who designed and erected the buildings 
with the help of "pattern books", typically used during that period. To house his workers, Little built 
a rooming house in 1887 which remains as the Eagles Mere Inn. Also constructed was the Flora 


United StatM D«p«rtm«nt of th« Inttdor 
National Park Sarvica 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


Sactlon numbar ^ Pig« * 

Villa Inn in 1890, today a bed and breakfast. 

In 1881 , a steam powered side-wheel launch appeared on the lake. This was the first of four water 
taxis that have transported vacationers and sightseers around the Lake. Today's "Hardly Able" 
(commonly referred to as the Launch"), is a recently restored World War I U.S. Navy launch, 
brought to the Lake on the Eagles Mere Railroad. 

In summary, Eagles Mere today is a living microcosm of life in a late 19th century well-to-do resort. 
Its large intact collection of grand Shingle Style cottages, beach and commercial buildings, boat 
houses, and church is a rare and welcome exception in Pennsylvania's changing architectural 
landscape. Most continue their original use. The Lake, the natural areas, private and protected, 
provide the same recreational and aesthetic pleasures they did 100 years before. This physical 
history is augmented by the more subtle traditions of the ice toboggan slide, water carnival, water 
sports, nature preserve, walking trails, and families whose homes and roots date to the reson's 
beginnings. Although the hotels are gone. Eagles Mere, the reson, remains. It has continually 
adapted to the changing life styles and leisure activities of America. This longevity is significant, not 
only in its lasting natural and architectural appearance, but as a surviving late 19th/early 20th 
century resort community preserving the traditions, activities, and aura, of that period. 


>. Malof BlbllographlMl R«f»r«f>c»t 

Prtvlout docum«nut)on on ni« (NP8): 

Oprallmlntry drarmlnttlon of IndMdud Itotlng (M CFR 67) 

hM b««n r«quMt«d 
Oprwtousiy llat*d In m« National R«glat«r 
I I pr«vioualy d«termln«d allglbia by tn« National Raglatar 

Bd«alonat«d a National HIatortc Undmarti 
racordtd by HIatorfc Amarlcan Bulldlnga 
8ufv«y # 
r~\ r«cortf«d by HIatoric Amarlcan Englnaartng 

Rtcort # 

Q8m continuation ahMi 

Primary location of additional data: 

^ Suta hlatonc praaarvatlon otnc* 

, Oth«r Stata tgancy 

, F«d«ral agancy 

, Local govammant 

J Unlvaralty 

Spacify rapoaltory: 

Eagles Mere Museum 

10. Qaoflraphloal Dm 

Acf «g« o« pfoprty ^/A 

UTM RafarancM 


Zon« Euting 
CLiJ I I ■ 

■ ' I I I I ' I ' ' 

BUJ M . I . r I I ■ I . I . I I 

Zona Eaating Northing 

ol_U I I ■ I . ■ I I ■ I ' I ' ■ I 

O 8«« continuation ahaat 

Varbal Boundary Oaacription ,,-00 jct^-wm 

Due to complexity and size of District, please see attached map: U.S.G.S. and Sketch Maps 
Mote: District lies within Eagles Mere Boro liniits, with the exception of the east end 

of Minerial Springs Road and Woodland Avenue in the Park section. These few 

properties are located in Shrewsbury Township. 

EDSaa continuation ahaai (■*?) 

Boundary Juatiflcatlon 

OS«« continuation thaal 

11. Form Pfaparxl By 

namartHIa Robert J. Wise. Jr., Intern, University of Pennsylvania 

organization Preservation Com.Tiittee, Eagles Mere MuseuJi ^ata 

atra« A numbar ^71 Hilltop Road 
ctty or town __?aoli 

,«n, 215-W)-12bl 



• utivo '(M-o-iaj'ttt 


Unlttd Stat«« D«p«rtment of th« Inttrior 

National Park Servic« 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


Section numbor iQ Pag« 2 


Due to the size and complexity of the district boundaries, please refer first to the 
U.S.G.S. map, then to the sketch map. 

The Eagles Mere Historic District is a large area encompassing the Eagles Mere 
Lake and Outlet Pond; the village on the lake's south end, including much of 
Laporte Avenue; the road and adjoining properties around the lake; the Crestmont 
area on the lake's east side; and the Beach and Park on the lake's north end. The 
district also includes natural areas around the lake, and to the east of the lake 
where many of the "Arrow" hiking trails begin. (Many of these paths continue out 
of the Borough and are not included in the district. The Trail Maps show the 
paths.) This irregular shaped district is approximately 1 .8 miles long north to 
south, and approximately one mile wide west to east. 

The boundary delineates the historic RESORT areas of Eagles Mere. Areas not 
included in the district are either not (or less) resort related, contain too many 
noncontributing buildings, or are areas of new development. 


United Statts D«p«rtm«nt of th« Inttrlof 
National Park S«rvlc« 

National Register of Historic Places 
Continuation Sheet 


8«ctJoo number _i___ Pag* 2 


Bitner, Jack. Pennsylvania Chautauqua: 1892-1992 . Mount Gretna. PA: The 

Pennsylvania Chautauqua, 1992. 
Bitner, Jack. Author of A Coleman Legacy . 1986. Book on Mount Gretna, PA. 

Interview. 30 July 1992. 
Paris, John T. Seeing Pennsylvania . Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1919. 
Jannes, Barbara and Bush. Mere Reflections: A Unique Journey Through 

Historic Eagles Mere . Montoursville, PA: Paulhamus Litho, Inc., 1988. 
James, Barbara and Bush. Author of Mere Reflections: A Unique Journey 

Through Historic Eagles Mere. 1988. Interviewed numerous times 

between May and August, 1992. 
Kane, Ellen. "Mount Gretna Grandiose." Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine . May 

21, 1989, pp. 40-41. 
Kramer, J.J. The Last of the Grand Hotels . New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 

Co., 1978. 
McFarland, J. Horace and McFarland, Robert B. Eagles Mere and the Sullivan 

Highlands . Harrisburg: J. McFarland Co. 1944. 
Mumma, Laura Sickel. "Of Cottages and Kings." Pennsylvania Heritage Vol. 

XII, No. 3(1986): 18-25. 
Scully, Vincent J. The Shingle Style and the Stick Style . 2nd ed. New 

Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. 
Stern, Robert A.M. Pride of Place: Building the American Dream . Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin Co., 1986. 
Wilson, Richard Guy. "Victorian Resorts and Hotels." Nineteenth Century Vol. 8. 

Nos. 1-2 (1982): 9-20. 
Wilson, Richard Guy. "From Informality to Pomposity: The Resort Casino in the 

Later 19th Century." Nineteenth Century Vol. 8, Nos. 1-2 (1982): 



Appendix 2. 

The Lakeside Advertising Brochure - 1920 
(to follow) 


I '" >j >- ','^^* 


































"u •- rr 











































































































i ^ 

^ o u !^ 

•M rt 

^ o 


■a '-^ 


QJ r: 1^ 
r- .. 1 

c i^ 

q -S — '" _r: 

-: ti S S 

? 3 .t: 
yj-c rt 

; J3 

rt -Q rt C 

bt . rt _ 
(- Jr. c/j ^^ 

§ f ? = ^ - 

- o .5 -c _c ■ 

O -C b£ i; ■^ o 

- ^ - c ^ c ■ 

v> rt C rt 

a o 11 

■--3 O-.S g u7^ 

_2 B bL-;;; 

rt j= 

rf „ c/j « Cu.t: o ^ 
_3 "> o ■. u- c 
I ■" . _c lu '' rt rt 

o c ^ 
- i: 4^ ' 
bC i: i> 

■^ ii-^'^; rt J £i 

- bD .,- O ^ -S 3 

■^ £^ 

V o 

o > t: ^, 

; .C _c _c 


o _>. Uj*- 


£ :i-- 

5 _0 -TV C ° 

rt ~ ^ ri 'y^ t: 

P 1^ .5 _C E 3 

-Jd £ ^ c o 

u 3 :? E - ° as 

-1h ^ '^ ,/ 3 (^ u- I 

HO V >- 1^ "- 

2 23 





;■ ' ■ ' .1 

.„., , .. ^ iiiftii^'i';' ^ 

^^;,> ' f.^- 



oj a, 

j= < ^ ^ 

3 t« ._:: ■;: 

O -o O 

~D </"' 




C "^ 



rt .E 







-o ^ 


O rt 






-= o 







o « 







_c o 








■5 .-H b S.Si 

L'-' aj 3 

«r? CU i 
















_ -c -J 

— _c 

*^ o 

Q ^ 



2 5 


-3 •;: 





c ■: 

3 -r 

-r^ ^ 


o o 

TD ■t-' 


a> « 


."ti ^ 

-3 bt 


C r- 





9- -3 




-O .::i 

^-, o 

D ja 


f 1 > 



c3 '^ 

- so 


J2 ^.2 rt 

C ^ '(U c — 


OJ 1- 



3 rt 




rt D 



«^ -C 




cx -^ 





5 c 


■a . 







> ^i 






2 -= 








a t: 











.i2 a. 








i rt 







c o 




•~ J2 







0^ QJ 




^ , ^ 

























o c^ - .. ^ 
— , . ~ -r, —- -n ^ 

"C o "3 C O ^ 

rt rt rt o 

O * r" I r- I c/) Qj L- • r\ c u. qj o 

~0 d < = S = lirt;<J= 

Ot/55 2c3ti-- — ^03rt'-3 

JZ;/;OrtP~2-— vP>-c^On 

M tp_3 

'I U 



o 2 n. ? 
















t— . 




• -■ 












aj O vi cj 

































































O — -3— _S IUT3 


ij „' 

<U CD 


>) ( 


4_, tC 

i: c 


c >.oh: • 

tiJ 3 



e ma 

a ^ 




-room, for 
of the lak 
acts noth 

O U, 









= > r ? 

— C 




le dini 
ful vie 
this d 


J3 <u 




3 i 


*-• m •■—■ '^ 

a. rt 





« 9 C'-^ 




a. 5 3 *^ 


-1 oj 



s a 
t of 

-C .ii 

o -c 



*^ > 






^ \ 



Q. 5- o t; 


* n 




o 1 

any wii 
d, and 
e enjoy 

i_ -a 

— IL) 





.£ e^-S 

^ o 

rt 3 


+-> <— 







tJIWTM'^'^-SJ-'-TK^^' ■«- 


-3 ' 

s a a 8 


c 3 
e c 

o a 

« in a 

Id - o 4) t; "o 


» «- j3 O 

',0 1^ I 




r—n arTii'llfiiti»ii •»iKi 

o 5 ._, 

0^ ■!-> 

■- 4; c 









Q. _ 











<u -r <u 

H rt sj 


OJ c . — ^ 

•- hf. rt r- i-rH 

tL ci 

=j d .5 -2 (u 

4-1 , — . 1-. 

■O ,? 

rt 0^ 



c S c/) 

?£ U 

2 28 

.. _•..' i*?!fl-. 

Appendix 3. 

Eagles Mere Association 
Information (Pages 1 & 2) 

Information Booklet 

The Eagles Mere Association was organized and chartered 
under the Pennsylvania Non-Prof it Corporation Law in 1961. It 
operates as a membership association with members being accepted 
only when approved by the Board of Trustees upon the 
recommendation of the Membership Committee. 

The Association was formed to acquire the stock of the 
Eagles Mere Land Company and the Eagles Mere Boat Company. 
Through these companies the Association owns the Eagles Mere 
Lake, including the "pond" and a strip of land 100 feet wide 
extending back from the shore of the lake and the outlet pond 
for practically the entire circumference. Substantial 
additional real property is owned in the Eagles Mere area. 

The By-Laws of the Association, a copy of which is 
available from the Assistant Secretary and Treasurer, list the 
following among the purposes of the Association. 

"To own, manage, and operate Eagles Mere Lake in 
Sullivan County, Pennsylvania..." 

"To preserve and develop the natural beauty and 
assure the use and enjoyment of these lands and facilities 
to the maximum benefit of the Shareholders of the 
Association and of such others to whom these privileges 
may be extended and ..." 

"To formulate rules and regulations and provide for 
the enforcement thereof, for the use of all properties and 
facilities now owned or hereafter acquired by the 
Association and its subsidiaries..." 

"To establish and maintain a system of fees for the 
various uses of the property and establish rules governing 
the payment of these fees and the benefits to be derived 
therefrom. It shall be the policy of the Association to 
establish all fees on the basis of offsetting costs and 
not for the purpose of deriving a profit therefrom..." 

It is the purpose of this booklet to set forth the rules, 
regulations and procedures which have been established by the 
Trustees to comply with the above responsibilities. This 
booklet should be read and understood by members. A copy should 
be available to guests, especially renters, in each member's 
Eagles Mere cottage. 

One final point warrants emphasis. Eagles Mere Lake is a 
natural feature of great beauty which deserves protection and 

2 29 

conservation. It also serves as the source of water for Eagles 
Mere. For both reasons, a numerical limit has been set upon 
membership in the Association. At present, the Association is 
limited to two hundred fifty (250) Active Members. 


Appendix 4. 

Eagles Mere Association 
By-Laws (Pages 1 and 2) 

.._^pted 1961 

As Amended Through 

August 27, 1988 


The purposes for which the Association is formed are: 

a. To ovn, manage, and operate Eagles Mere Lake, in Sullivan County, 
Pennsylvania, and all the unsold land and lots owned by it or its 
wholly-owned subsidiary. Eagles Mere Land Company, Inc., the 
improvements and equipment related thereto, and any property 
which may, from time to time, be acquired by it or its sub- 

b. To preserve and develop the natural beauty and assure the use and 
enjoyment of these lands and facilities to the maximum benefit of 
the Shareholders of the Association and of such others to whom 
these privileges may be extended and to promote the fellowship 
and educational benefit of the entire community, members and non- 
members also, through lectures, studies, instruction and classes 
conducted by members and guests. 

c. To lease, mortgage and sell any or all of such lands and lots and 
apply the proceeds to the payment of any outstanding debt of the 
Association or its subsidiaries, to capital improvements and to 
acquisition of additional property, provided, however, that no 
real estate shall be so leased, mortgaged or sold unless duly 
authorized by the affirmative vote of at least 75X of the shares 
of the Association entitled to vote then outstanding. 

It shall be the policy of the Association to continue the policy 
consistently adhered to through the years by the Eagles Mere Land 
Company, Inc., to-wit, the policy of buying or otherwise acquir- 
ing outstanding lake, boathouse and bathhouse rights and extin- 
guishing them whenever possible, and to take such other actions 
as may be desirable to protect and enhance the beauty and useful- 
ness of the properties of the Association and its subsidiaries. 

d. To formulate rules and regulations and provide for the 
enforcement thereof, for the use of all properties and facilities 
now owned or hereafter acquired by the Association and its sub- 

e. To establish and maintain a system of fees for the various uses 
of the property and establish rules governing the payment of 


these fees and the benefits to be derived therefrom. It shiall be 
the policy of the Association to establish all fees on the basis 
of offsetting costs and not for the purpose of deriving a profit 

f. To establish annually a "basic annual fee" vhich must be paid as 
a requirement of membership as outlined belov: 

1. The lake and real property owned by the Association and its 
subsidiaries was acquired with funds resulting from the sale 
of shares in the Association. Title in this property can be 
protected and continued only by the payment of certain basic 
annual costs such as taxes, liability insurance and such 
other items as relate to this ownership — rather than to 

2. Each Shareholder is therefore a part-owner of the 
Association and its property and as such will share in these 
costs just as if the property were proportionately owned by 
such Shareholder directly. 

3. The holders of each share shall pay the basic annual fee, 
which shall be charged on a share basis, provided, however, 
that Shareholders owning two shares shall be required to pay 
only one basic annual fee unless such Shareholders own or 
lease two or more parcels of improved real estate as herein- 
after defined. 


Appendix 5. 

Eagles Mere 1988 Zoning 
Ordinance (Classifications) 



The existing Eagles Mere Zoning Ordinance was 
approved in 1982. Believing that a revision 
of the Ordinance is needed, Borough Council 
has directed the preparation of a revised 
ordinance and map. 

Significant new materials are indicated by 
underlining or by an "n" next to a paragraph 
which is new, or largely rewritten. 




AN ORDINANCE to amend the zoning ordinance of Eagles 
Mere Borough, amending the statement of community development 
objectives, establishing R-A and R-AS Residence Districts and 
area, width, yard and use regulations for those districts, 
amending the area, width, yard and use regulations applicable 
to existing residential and commercial districts, amending the 
provisions governing nonconforming uses and lots, establishing 
regulations limiting construction on steep slopes, amending 
the provisions limiting building height and area, providing 
for special exceptions and revising the criteria used to 
determine whether a permission is contrary to the public 
interest, and effecting other amendments to the zoning ordi- 
nance . 

BE IT ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the Council of the 
Borough of Eagles Mere as follows: 

Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance of Eagles Mere 
Borough is hereby amended and, for convenience, restated in 
its entirety to read as follows: 

§1 . Purpose . 

§1.1 Statement of Community Development Objectives . 
This ordinance is enacted for the following 
purposes : 

A. To protect and promote the safety, health and 
morals of Eagles Mere Borough and to preserve 
environmentally sensitive areas, woodlands 
and open areas, and the natural beauty of the 
borough ; 

B. To accomplish a coordinated development of 
this borough; 

C. To provide for the general welfare by guiding 
and protecting amenity, convenience and 

Significant new materials are indicated by underlining or 
by an -"h" next to a paragraph which is new, or largely 
rewritten. These notations are not a part of the zoning 
ordinance . 


future governmental, economic, practical, 
social and cultural facilities, development 
^ and growth, as well as the improvement of 
governmental processes and functions; 

D. To guide uses of land and structures and the 
type and location of streets, public grounds 
and other facilities and to protect the 
borough's historical heritage ; 

E. To permit this Borough and adjacent munic- 
ipalities to minimize such problems as may 
presently exist or as may be foreseen; 

F. To promote, protect and facilitate one or 
more of the following: the public health, 
safety, morals, general welfare, coordinated 
and practical community development, proper 
density of population, the provision of 
adequate light and air, police protection, 
vehicle parking and loading space, 
transportation, water, sewerage, schools, 
public grounds and other public requirements; 
as we 1 1 as; 

G. To prevent one or more of the following: 
over-crowding of land, blight, danger and 
congestion in travel and transportation, and 
loss of health, life or property from fire, 
panic or other dangers. 

§1.2 This ordinance and all amendments thereto have been 
made in accordance with an overall program and with 
consideration for the character of the borough and 
its various parts and the suitability of the various 
parts for particular uses and structures. 

§2 . Interpretation . 

In interpreting and applying the provisions of this 
ordinance, they shall be held to be the minimum requirements 
for the promotion of the health, safety, morals and general 
welfare of the borough. 

§3. Terms defined . 

§3.1 Word usage . As used in this ordinance, the present 
tense includes the future; the singular includes the 
plural, and the plural, the singular; the word 
"building" includes the word "structure" and shall be 
-construed as if followed by the words "or part 
thereof"; the word "occupy" includes the words 
"designed or intended to be occupied"; the word "use" 



includes the words "arranged, designed or intended to 
be used"; and the word "shall" is always mandatory. 

§3.2 Definitions . Unless otherwise expressly stated, the 
following words and phrases shall be construed 
throughout this ordinance to have the meanings 
indicated in this Section. 

ACCESSORY BUILDING — A building subordinate to the 
principal building on a lot and used for a permitted 
accessory use . 

BUILDING AREA — The aggregate of the maximum hori- 
zontal cross-sectional areas of all buildings on a 
lot above the ground level, measured at the greatest 
outside dimensions. 

BUILDING LINE — The line which establishes the 
minimum depth of the front yard for the particular 
district, as measured (i) from the street line, or 
(ii) in the case of an interior lot served by an 
access driveway, from the property line closest to a 
street line. 

COURT — An open space partly or completely enclosed 
by the walls of a building. 

DWELLING — A building designed for and occupied 
exclusively for residence purposes. 

designed for and occupied exclusively as a 
residence for only one (1) family and having no 
party wall in common with an adjacent building. 

(2) MULTIFAMILY DWELLING — A building designed for 
and occupied exclusively as a residence for two 
(2) or more families. 

FAMILY — Any number of individuals living and cook- 
ing together as a single housekeeping unit, provided 
that not more than three (3) of such number are 
unrelated to all of the others by blood, marriage or 
legal adoption. Domestic servants shall be consider- 
ed an adjunct to the term "family". 

HEIGHT OF BUILDING — A building's vertical measure- 
ment from the mean level of the ground surrounding 
the building to a point midway between the highest 
and lowest points of the roof, provided that chim- 
neys, spires, towers, elevator penthouses, tanks and 
similar projections shall not be included in calcu- 
lating height. 



LOT — A parcel of land which is occupied or is to be 
occupied by one (1) principal building, together with 
any accessory buildings customarily incidental to 
such principal building. The "area of a lot" shall 
be that portion of the lot or parcel of land lying 
within the property lines and outside of any street 
lines . 

STREET — A right-of-way, publicly or privately 
owned, serving as a means of vehicular and pedestrian 
travel and furnishing access to abutting properties. 

STREET LINE — The right-of-way line of a street. 

STRUCTURE — Any form or arrangement of building 
materials involving the necessity of providing proper 
support, bracing, tying and anchoring. 

YARD -- The required open, unoccupied space on the 
same lot with a building, open and unobstructed from 
the ground to the sky, except for projections permit- 
ted under §17.1. 

(1) FRONT YARD — A yard extending the full width of 
the lot along the street line and not less in 
depth, measured as described in the definition 
of "building line," than the minimum required in 
each district. 

(2) SIDE YARD — A yard extending along the side lot 
line from the front yard to the rear yard and 
not less in width, measured from the side lot 
line, than the minimum required in each 

(3) REAR YARD — A yard extending the full width of 
the lot along the rear lot line and not less in 
depth, measured from the rear lot line, than the 
minimum required in each district. 

§4. Classification of Districts 

§4.1 Classes of districts . 

The borough is hereby divided into eight districts 
designated as follows: 

R-A Residence Districts 

R-1 Residence Districts 

R-2 Residence Districts 

R-3 Multifamily Districts 

R-4 Mobilehome Districts 

R-AS Residence-Recreational Districts 



C-1 Recreational - Commercial Districts 
C-2 Commercial Districts 

§4.2 Zoning Maps . 

The boundaries of districts shall be shown upon the 
maps attached to and made a part of this ordinance, which 
shall be designated "Zoning Maps". The maps and all the 
notations, references and other data shown thereon are hereby 
incorporated by reference to this Section and shall be as much 
a part of this ordinance as if all were fully described here- 

§4.3 District boundaries . 

The boundaries between districts are, unless other- 
wise indicated, either the center lines of streets or such 
lines extended or lines parallel thereto. Where figures are 
shown on the Zoning Maps between a street and a district 
boundary line, they indicate that the district boundary line 
runs parallel to the street line at a distance therefrom 
equivalent to the number of feet so indicated. 

§4.4 Boundary tolerances . 

Where a district boundary line divides a lot held in 
single and separate ownership at the effective date of this 
chapter, the regulations applicable to the less restricted 
district shall extend over the portion of the lot in the more 
restricted district a distance of not more than fifty (50) 
feet beyond the district boundary line. 

§5. R-A Residence Districts 

§5.1 Applicability . In an R-A Residence District the 
regulations of this Section shall apply. 

§5.2 Use Regulations . A building may be erected or used 
and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the following 
purposes and no other. 

A. Single family detached dwelling. 

B. Agriculture. 

C. Municipal or governmental use. 

D. Telephone and public utility facilities. 

E. Playing fields, tennis courts, trails and walks. 

F. The following accessory uses. 



(i) A private garage, storage shed or stable. 

(ii) A professional office, artist's or musi- 
cian's studio, or manufacture or production of 
goods not involving a substantial amount of 
equipment, provided in the case of all the 
above-listed uses that the use is located in a 
dwelling in which the practitioner resides or in 
a building accessory thereto, and that no more 
than one person other than the practitioner is 
employed or utilized on the premises. 

§5.3 Area , Width and Yard Regulations . 

A. Lot area and width . A lot area of not less than 
100 , 000 square feet and a lot width of not less 
than 150 feet (150') measured at the building 
line shall be provided for every building, other 
than an accessory building, hereinafter erected 
or used for any use in this district. 

B. Yards . There shall be a front yard on each 
street on which the lot abuts, the depth of 
which shall be at least fifty feet (50'). There 
shall be a rear yard, the depth of which shall 
be at least fifty feet (50'). There shall be 
side yards along each side property line, the 
width of which shall be at least twenty-five 
feet (25'). 

§6. R^^l Residence Districts 

§6.1 In an R-1 Residence District the regulations of this 
Section shall apply. 

§6.2 Use Regulations . A building may be erected or used 
or occupied for any of the following purposes and no other. 

A. A use permitted in an R-1 Residence District. 

B. Church. 

C. Community center, conservancy center, fire and 
emergency facilities, concert hall, theatre, 
facilities for community or youth activities, 
when the above uses are operated by a nonprofit 
organization . 

D. Recreational facilities when operated by a 
nonprofit organization, including golf courses, 

^' swimming facilities, boats, docks, bathhouses, 
repair and storage facilities, and related 
office, restaurant and retail sale activities. 




Area, Width and Yard Regulations 

Lot area and width 
fifty thousanH 

A lot area of not less than 
S?,000 ) square feet and a lot 


width of not less than one hundred feet (100') 
measured at the building line shall be provided 
for every building, other than an accessory 
building, hereinafter erected or used for any 
use in this district. 

B. Yards . There shall be a front yard on each 
street on which the lot abuts, the depth of 
which shall be at least fifty feet ( 50' ) . There 
shall be a rear yard, the depth of which shall 
be at least fifty feet ( 50' ) . There shall be 
side yards along each side property line, the 
width of which shall be at least twenty feet 
(20' ) . 

§7. R-2 Residence Districts 

$7.1 In an R-2 Residence District the regulations of this 
Section shall apply. 

$7.2 Use Regulations . A building may be erected or used 
and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the following 
purposes and no other. 

A. A use permitted in an R-1 Residence District. 

$7.3 Area , Width and Yard Regulations . 

A. Lot area and width . A lot area of not less than 
twelve thousand rr2,000) square feet and a lot 
width of not less than sixty feet (60') measured 
at the building line shall be provided for every 
building, other than an accessory building, 
hereinafter erected or used for any use in this 
district . 

B. Yards . There shall be a front yard on each 
street on which the lot abuts, the depth of 
which shall be at least twenty-five feet (25'). 
There shall be a rear yard, the depth of which 
shall be at least twenty-five feet (25'). There 
shall be side yards along each side property 
line, the width of which shall be at least eight 
feet (8'). 



58. R-3 Multifamily Districts 

$8.1 Applicability . In a R-3 Multifamily District the 
regulations of this Section shall apply. 

$8.2 Use Regulations . A building may be erected or used 
and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the following 
purposes and no other. 

A. A use permitted in an R-1 Residence District. 

B. Multifamily dwelling, 

$8.3 Area , Width and Yard Regulations . 

A. For multifamily dwellings the following require- 
ments shall apply. 

(1) Lot area and width . A lot area of not less 
than six thousand ( 6, OOP ) square feet per family 
and a lot width of not less than eighty feet 
( 80' ) at the building line shall be provided for 
every building hereinafter erected or used as a 
multifamily dwelling, but in no event shall any 
building hereinafter erected or used as a muTEi- 
family dwelling be pr ovided wITh a lot aTea of 
less than eighteen thous and ( 18 , 070T~iquare 
Te¥t . 

(2) Yards . There shall be a front yard on each 
street on which the lot abuts, the depth of 
which shall be at least twenty-five feet (25'). 
There shall be a rear yard, the depth of which 
shall be at least twenty-five feet (25'). There 
shall be side yards along each side property 
line, the width of which shall be at least 
twenty feet ( 20' ) . 

(3) Courts . The minimum width of any court 
shall be thirty (30') feet. 

B. For other uses the following requirements shall 

(1) Lot Area and Width . A lot area of not less 
than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet and a 
lot width of not less than eighty feet (80') 
shall be provided for every building, other than 
an accessory building, hereinafter erected or 
used for any such use in this district. 

(2) Yards . The yard requirements of $8.3-A(2) 
shall apply. 



§9. R-4 Mobilehome Districts 

59.1 Applicability . In an R-4 Mobilehome District the 
regulations of this Section shall apply. 

59.2 Use Regulations . A building may be erected or used 
and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the following 
purposes and no other - 

A. A use permitted in an R-1 Residence District. 

B. Mobilehome park or trailer camp. 

59.3 Area , Width and Yard Regulations . 

A. For mobilehome parks and trailer camps the fol- 
lowing requirements shall apply. 

(1) Lot area and width. A lot area of not less 
than 10,000 square feet and a lot width of not 
less than 50 feet at the building line shall be 
provided for each mobilehome lot, mobilehome or 
trailer . 

(2) Yards . There shall be a front yard on each 
street on which the lot abuts, the depth of 
which shall be at least twenty-five (25') feet. 
There shall be a rear yard, the depth of which 
shall be at least twenty-five (25') feet. There 
shall be side yards along each side 
propertyline , the width of which shall be at 
least eight (8' ) feet. 

B. For other uses in an R-4 Mobilehome District, 
the lot area, width and yard requirements of 
§8 . 3-B shall apply. 

C. Where a mobilehome park or trailer camp abuts an 
R-A, R-1, R-2 or R-AS Residential District there 
shall be a buffer area along the district 
boundary line within the R-4 Mobilehome District 
the depth of which shall be at least fifty (50') 
feet, measured from the district boundary line. 
A screen of trees, shrubbery or hedges shall be 
planted and maintained within the buffer area 
sufficient in density to constitute an effective 
screen and give maximum protection and visual 
screening to abutting properties. The buffer 
area may be included in any yard areas required 
by the provisions of the section, but the buffer 

""• area shall not be used for any purpose other 
than planting and screening. 



$10, R-AS Residence - Recreational Districts 

$10.1 Applicability . In an R-AS Residence - Recreational n 
District the regulations of this Section shall apply. 

$10.2 Use Regulations . A building may be erected or used ^^ 
and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the following 
purposes and no other. 

A. A use permitted in an R-1 Residence District. n 

B. Riding stables. 

C. Ski area. 

D. The following additional accessory uses when 
incidental to a permitted riding stable or ski 
area use. 

(1) Restaurant or snack bar. n 

(2) Retail sale or leasing of ski and riding n 
clothing and equipment. 

$10.3 Area , Width and Yard Regulations . The lot area, n 

width and yard requirements of §5.3 shall apply. 

§11. C-1 Recreational - Commercial Districts 

$11.1 Applicability . In a C-1 Recreational-Commercial 
District the regulations of this Section shall apply. 

$11.2 Use Regulations . A building may be erected or used 
and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the following 
purposes and no other. 

A. A use permitted in an R-3 Multifamily District. 
The uses described in §6.2-C and $6.2-D shall be 
permitted in this district whether or not 
operated by a nonprofit organization. 

B. Hotel, motel, or rooming house. 

C. Ski area, riding stables. 

D. Hospital, medical center, medical office, sani- 
tarium, convalescent or nursing home. 

E. Charitable, religious or philanthropic use. 

F^.* The following additional accessory uses when 

incidental to a hotel or motel use: restaurant, 
snack bar , retail sales or personal services. 



SI 1.3 Area , Width and Yard Regulations . 

A. For multifamily dwellings the requirements of 
S8.3-A shall apply. 

B. For other uses in a C-1 Recreational-Commercial 
District, the lot area, width and yard 
requirements of §6 . 3 shall apply. 

S12. C-2 Commercial Districts 

§12. 1 Applicability . In a C-2 Commercial District the 
regulations of this Section shall apply. 

$12.2 Use Regulations . A building may be erected or used 
and a lot may be used or occupied for any of the following 
purposes and no other. 

A. A use permitted in a C-1 Recreational-Commercial 
District . 

B. Bakery, grocery, hardware store, gift shop, 
craft shop, retail store, provided as to all of 
the above uses that not more than six (6) 
persons shall be employed on the premises in the 
manufacture or production of goods. 

C. Bank or financial institution. 

D. Personal service shop. 

E. Office. 

F. Restaurant. 

G. Club or Lodge. 

H. Educational institution, child care facility. 

I. Cemetery. 

J. Garage, gasoline station, automotive sales, 
automotive repair facility. 

K. Counseling, training or rehabilitation center, 

group home, half-way house or any other facility 
for delinquent persons, persons with mental or 
emotional difficulties or persons with alco- 
holic, drug and similar problems, but only when 

"• authorized by Borough Council as a conditional 
use . 



L. Any other commercial or industrial use, but only 
when authorized by Borough Council as a 
' conditional use. 

M. Any use of the same general character as a use 
permitted in this district, but only when 
authorized by Borough Council as a conditional 
use . 

SI 2. 3 Area , Width and Yard Regulations . 

A. In a C-2 Commercial District the requirements 

set forth in §7.3 shall apply to all uses except 
multifamily dwellings, which shall be governed 
by the requirements of S8.3-A. 


Appendix 6. 

Section 170(h), I.R.C. (1986) 
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural 
Resources Program. Federal Historic Preservation Laws. (1989-1990). 

(to follow) 


Qualified real 
property interests 


Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 «> 
(Qualified Conservation Contributions) 

Section 170fh) Qualified Consen-ahon Contriburion 

(1) In General. For purposes of subsection (f)(3)(B)(iii), the tenn 
"qualified conservation contributxin" means a contribution 

(A) of a qualified real property interest, 

(B) to a qualified organization, 

(C) exclusively for conservation purposes. 

(2) Qualified Real Property Interest. For purposes of this sub- 
section, the term "qualified real property interest" means any 
of the following interest in real property: 

(A) the entire interest of the donor other than a qualified 
mineral interest, 

(B) a remainder interest, and 

(C) a restriction (granted in perpetuity) on the use which 
may be made of the real property. 

(3) Qualified Organization. For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
term "qualified organization" means an organization which 

(A) is described in clause (v) or (vi) of subsection (bKlKA), 

(B) is described in section 501(cK3) and 

(i) meets the requirements of section 509(aK2), or 

(ii) meets the requirements of section 509(a)(3) and is con- 
trolled by an organization descnbed in subparagraph (A) 
or in clause (i) of this subparagraph. 

(4) Conservation Purpose Defined. 

(A) In general. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
"conservation purpose" means 

(i) the preservation of land areas for outdoor recreation 
by, or the education of, the general public, 

(ii) the protection of relatively natural habitat of fish, wild- 
life, or plants, or similar ecosystem, 

(iii) the preservation of open space (including farmland 
and forest land) where such preservation is 

(I) for the sceiuc enjoyment of the general pub'ic, or 

(II) pursuant to a clearly delineated Federal, State, or 
local governmental conservation policy, and will yield a 
sigiuficant public benefit, or 

(iv) the preservation of an historically Important land area 
or a certified historic structure. 

(B) Certified Historic Structure. For purposes of subpara- 
graph (A)(iv), the term "certified histonc structure means 
any building, structure, or land area which 

Thus ode u n» «p onxail >hon Btl« bui is mnrlv a pocpui«r lume ror itvc ronvrrutncT « thf 
ruder s«coor> CTThi hu no omcul thon oU« ietnon rOihi a the IniemiJ Krvrnue i-ooe ot N86 
<»« Sat 3J04i, u an roru> hemn. i> codifted •» J6 L S C ITWh. 


(i) is listed in the National Register, or 

(li) is located in a registered histonc district (as defined in 
4S(g){3)) and is certified by- the Secretaiv ot the Intenor to 
the Secretary as bemg ot historic significance to the district. 

A building, structure, or land area satisfies the preceding 
sentence if it satisfies such sentence either at the time of 
the transfer or on the due date (including extensions) for 
filing the transferor's return under this chapter for the 
taxable year in which the transfer is made. 

Conveyance in (5) Exdtisively for Conservation Purposes. For purposes of 

perpetuity this subsection 

(A) Conservation Purpose Must Be Protected. A contribution 
shall not be treated as exclusively for conservation purposes 
unless the conservation pmrpose is protected in perpetuity. 

(B) No Surface Mining Permitted. In the case of a contribu- 
tion of any interest where there is a retention of a qualified 
mineral interest, subparagraph (A) shall not be treated as 
met if at any time there may be extraction or removal of 
minerals by any surface mining method. 

(6) Qualified Mineral Interest. For purposes of this subsection, 
the term "qualified mineral interest" means 

(A) subsxirface oil, gas or other minerals, and 

(B) the right to access to such minerals. 


Appendix 7. 
PHPC Easement Donation Requirements 


B4iard of Dinclors 

Min C Cirroll 

Fint ^ice ^rfn4fnt 
• i>uii W PiuccLj 

li. r ^elulmi for Df^flopmrnt 
\Urfarei Pact Ducken 

dHThiid J Stisu. Eu) 

Divid A Bahimwi 

Ri lUv AJIm L Builca. Jr. 

Roten F Bowmajt 

Elizabeth S Browne 

; Thomu Ounicvy 

>iu|ilu N Ffcnkd. E14 

JoluiO Hau 

^illiafn E Hemw 

Theudort Henhberf 

Uani Kaurtman 

ttilliain A Kinislcy 

Bernard Lcc. Eaq 

«iict B Loradorf 

Mar> MacCretoc MvhcT 

;^^on R Nathart 

Thradorc T NewboM 

HertKn L Olivien. £14 

£rfuly C Hiity 

\ Kiur H Schksinier 

Dianne L Seminfton 

kictkard M Sberman 

j'^mei Suniey Whiu 

E>e WjIdrKk 

S^rttara J KapUn 
J>*hn Krufner 
Sie%'Cit P Kurtz 
SlepAen Mullin 
C Crmil ScbcilCT 
Ravmoad E Sbipman 
Richard Tyler 

Oj>>) C DeLudf 
Linda V Ellsmnh 
Brmi Glau 
Davkl C Manhall 
Oavni w Maicy 
L^rry E Tue 

Vkillian S Blades 

Ejirnuivr Vict ^muUmi 
; Rjinlall C.mon 

' icr freitjnu 
^mitram OryriopmeM 

PHPC Rcstoralioa, Inc. 

Jam R NadiHi 

MK'hael Dean. Eaq 

h*m Raacti 

MKhael SdnlMCk 


1616 W.UXLT STREET. PHILADELPHU. PEXNSHXVANIA 19103 (215) 546-1146 F.AX (215) 546-1180 

To begin easement donation processing we will need the following 
from the Owner 

legal description of the property 

map of the property showing boundaries 

exact names and title of the owners of the property, or partnership(s) 
names and titles, and the names of the individuals who have the 
authority to sign documents for the owners 

current insurance certificate for the property 

legal address of the property 

the name of the mortgagee(s) and the name and telephone number of 
the loan officer(s) 

any specied circumstances of the mortgagee with resf)ect the insurance, 
condemnation or assignment sections of the easement document. 

Part I and n of the Tax Act Certification 

All plans and specifications for the exterior and roof of the property 

National Register nominations or historical information or photos of 
the property 

Name and telephone number of the owner's architect and attorney 
responsible for this project 


Appendix 8. 

General Principles of Valuations 
Source: Appraising Easements, National Trust for Historic 
Preservation and the Land Trust Exchange, 1990, pp. 19-23. 

(to follow) 


II. General Principles of Easement Valuation 

The valuation process is a conase, logical and thorough procedure that 
should result in a supportable conclusion of market value for the property being 
appraised. The appraisal process eshmates the value of real property based on 
Its relahonship to other propernes that, collectively, constitute the potenhal n\ar- 
ket. The valuahon of conservation easements as partial interests in real property 
does not differ from the valuahon of real propertv in general. However, since 
there is no established, traditional market for conservation easements, such in- 
terests must be valued indirectly through the Before and After method of ap- 

A. Before and After Method Generally Used to Value an Easement 

1. Description of Before and After Method 

The Before and After method is used to determine whether, and the 
degree to which, an easement changes a property's use and value. Under 
the Before and After method, the value of the property after the im- 
posibon of the easement is subtracted from the value of the property 
before the imposition of the easement to estimate the value of the ease- 
ment. Each value conclusion is made as of the same date. 

2. Before and After Method Widely Used 

The Before and After method of estimating easement value has been 
employed since the 19th century by courts and apprcusers to measure 
the compensation, if any, payable under eminent domain proceedings 
for acquisitions of partial interests in property. It is also used tjy gov- 
ernmental agencies, gas line and utility companies to value partial in- 
terests acquired by them. Banks and other lenders use Before and After 
analysis to estimate the market value of property encumbered by ease- 
ments or the value of easements to be released from mortgaged property-. 

B. Before Valuation 

1. Determine Highest and Best Use 

The first step in the Before and After valuation process is the deter- 
mination of the property's highest and best use in its current condition 
unrestncted by the easement (the "Beiore" value). As noted, the highest 
and best use is that reasonable and probable use that v^^ support the 
highest present value for the property as of the date of the appraisal. 
The highest and best use of land if vacant and available for use will be 
different trom the highest and best use of the same land with a misplaced 
improvement. Generally, in this step of the appraisal process the ap- 
praiser considers the suitability of the property' s current use under ex- 
isting zoning and market condihons and estimates the reasonable like- 
lihood ot a change in use (and the assoaated direct and indirect costs 
and delay), absent the easement, to realize a more prontable economic 


a. Evaluate potential for continuation of existing use and 
alternative uses. 

After considenng opportunities and limitations — phvsical. legal, 
social and economic — under highest and best use, the appraiser es- 
hmates the property's potential for conrinuahon of its existing use or 
for realisric altemartve uses generahng greater value. After demolition 
and clearing, if appropnate, altemahve uses with either exishng im- 
provements or as vacant land might include any of the following: 

• Subdivision 

• Redevelopment 

• Renovahon 

• Flooding 

• Timbering 

b. Estimate remoteness of eventual zoning changes. 

The possibility, if not the probability, of future change in zoning 
is easy to assert but useless to claim unless recognized in the market. 
Any proposed higher than current use requires both closeness in 
time and reasonable probability. Quantification of the support for the 
probability of change — both statisrical and anecdotal — is essenhal. 
The value that theoretically or hypothetically could be added to land 
by possibilities of development is not an appropriate pre-easement 
consideration unless factually supported in the report. 

2. Apply the Three Recognized Approaches to Value 

The appraiser should apply, as appropriate, the three approaches to 
valuing property — the Income, Cost and Comparable Sales approaches 
(see section III) to the "Before" value as appropriate. All factors must 
be analyzed in view of the current local market, which of necessity 
contemplates reasonably foreseeable trends already reflected in the mar- 
ketplace, such as rezonings, demolition permits, subdivision approvals, 
consummated sales and leases. 

3. Inherent Differences Between Unimproved Rural Properties and Urban and 
Suburban Properties 

It is important to recognize that there are inherent differences be- 
tween relatively unimproved properties (such as farmland, hmberland 
and wetlands) and improved historic commercial and residential prop- 
erties, as well as differences between urban and suburban historic prop- 
erhes. As will become apparent in the discussion of specific types of 
conservation easement, these differences affect directlv the current and 
potential future uses of the property and the weight to be given each 
of the three approaches to value. 


C. After Valuation 

1. Determine Highest and Best Use in/ Comparing Easement Cmenants to 
Existing Zoning Regulation and Other Controls 

As in the Before valuation, the first step in the After valuation is the 
determination of the propertv's highest and best use after imposihon of 
an easement. The appraiser must anaivze the easement terms and cov- 
enants, individually and collectivelv, and compare them to existing zon- 
ing regulations and other controls to estimate whether, and the extent 
to which, the use restrichons contained in the easement will affect 
current and alternate future uses of the property. Examples of pre-ex- 
isting controls include local regulahon, such as agricultural or historic 
distnct zones, statewide regulation, such as land-gam taxes to deter land 
speculahon, and federal limitations, such as flood plam controls or the 
necessity to obtain environmental or historic preservahon reviews for 
federally licensed or assisted projects. 

2. Apply the Three Rfcognized Approaches to Value 

As in the Before valuahon, the appraiser will apply the Comparable 
Sales, Cost and Income approaches as appropriate to estimate the value 
of the property as encumbered by the easement. 

3. Change in Highest and Best Use Important in Easement Valuation 

A change in the highest and best use of the property is frequently 
dted as a critical factor in the Before and After valuation of conservation 
easements. Where highest and best use calls for immediate demolition 
or subdivision, an easement prohibiting such changes will have an im- 
mediate and substantial effect on vjilue. Where current use is commen- 
surate with highest and best use, an easement perpetually limiting use 
of the property to current use may have nominal value. 

As discussed in section III, however, easement restrictions may be 
reflected in the three approaches to value, even without a change in 
highest and best use. Under the Comparable Sales approach to value, 
for example, a well-informed purchaser would consider the immediate 
and long-term costs of complying with the easement and pay less for a 
restricted property than for otherwise comparable unrestncted prop- 
erties. Similarly, the replacement cost and income approaches may in- 
dicate immediate and long-term value impairment attributable to the 
easement because of increased costs of complying with the easement. 

4. Easements Are Often More Valuable m Areas Experiencing Change in 
Highest and Best Use 

The impairment in market value attributable to an easement is fre- 
quently greater on properties in those agncultural, recreational, resi- 
dential or commercial areas that are expenencing a change in highest 
and best use. Easements given on properties that are expenencing an 


upward change in highest and best use or that are logically in the line 
for development for more intensive uses are valuable because they ex- 
tinguish or limit development potential for the land. In areas that are 
rapidly declimng m value, an easement obhgatmg the ou-ner to mamtam 
existing improvements in place ufhen market condirions warrant dem- 
ohhon may also cause a significant reduction in the property's value. 

5. Easement's Impact on Adjacent Properties Owned by Donor 

Like tradihonal eminent domain appraisal work, appraisals of con- 
servation easements for federal tax purposes must consider the ease- 
ment's impact on any adjacent property owned by the donor or the 
donor's family. Tradihonally, such adjacent property must be valued with 
the easement encumbered property' if it meets the "larger parcel" tests 
of unity of highest and best or actual use and unity of title or probability 
of joinder. For example, if an easement is imposed on only a portion of 
the donors land and the value of the unencumbered land (the unen- 
cumbered remainder of the larger parcel) is enhanced, such enhance- 
ment must be offset against the reduction in value of the easement- 
burdened land. 

The Internal Revenue Service's proposed regvilations governing do- 
nations of qualified conservation contributions would incorporate the 
traditional larger parcel/unity of quality of title and use concept. The 
regulation provides that if an easement is donated by a taxpayer over 
land contiguous to unencumbered land owned by the taxpaver or the 
taxpayer's immediate family, the appraiser must offset any enhancement 
in value attributable to such properties in estimating the value of an 
easement. The proposed regulation defines immediate family by refer- 
ence to Internal Revenue Code § 267(c)(4), which states that the donor's 
immediate famiK' is confined to the donor's "brothers and sisters (whether 
by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors and lineal descendants." 

In addition, the proposed regulations would require a balanong of 
the economic and other benefits to be denved by the donor and the 
donor's immediate family against the financial and other benefits that 
will inure to the general public from the donation. The proposed reg- 
ulations, at Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-13(h)(3)(i), state, "if the donor or the 
donor's family receives, or can reasonably be expected to receive, finan- 
cial or economic benefits that are greater than those that will mure to 
the general public from the transfer, no deduction is allowable under 
this section " 

This balanang of public and private benefits incident to the gift of a 
conservation easement requires a legal interpretation of whether a pro- 
posed donation, based on all the tacts and circumstances, satisfies the 
legal requirements for deductibilit\-. Although appraisal data will be 
useful in this anaivsis, appraisal data by itselt may not be dispositive. 
Appraisers and property owners analvzing gifts ot easements over less 
than the donors entire propenv are encouraged to seek legal counsel 


in applying the balancing required by this section in light of specific fact 

6 Value of Easement Rfduced by Any Benefit Received by Donor 

For federal tax purposes, the value of the easement donation must 
be reduced on the taxpayer's tax return by the value of any beneht 
received by the donor, such as direct compensation (i.e., a grant in 
connection with a facade renovation program), a transferred develop- 
ment right, a low-interest loan or zoning concessions received in ex- 
change for open space or parkland dedication 


Appendix 9. 

Appraisal Valuation Differences 

Hilborn's connputations 

Stated Contract price 

Amount escrowed for future rehabilitation 

Percent of dinninution 

Diminution value rounded to nearest $1,000 
Amount escrowed for future facade repairs 
Fair market value of easement* 




X 0.12 


+ 48.000 


Commissioner's computation: 

Before value 
Less land value 
Improvement value 
Diminution percent 
Diminution value 
Before value 
Less diminution value* 
After value 









Final Court computation: 

Before value 
Cost of property (includes land) 
Rehabilitation commitment 
Facade renovation 


Times: Diminution percent 

Diminution value 

Before value 

Less: Diminution value* 

After value 










Diminution value 


Appendix 10. 

Sample Easement: Brandywine Conservancy 
(to follow) 




TIVE COVENANTS, hereinatler relerreo lo as ine Gram ana Decla- 
ration ' maae this Oav ol ;n me vear ol our 

Lora One Thousana Nine Munoreo ano Eignty 


ol Townsnip County Commonweaiin 

ol Pennsylvania, parties ol the first pan. nereinafier caiieo tne Gran- 


BRANDYWINE CONSERVANCY. INC . a non-orotit corpo- 
ration of the State of Delaware, party of the secono pan nereinafier 
called tne Grantee : 


WHEREAS. Grantors are the owners of a cenain tract ol 
ground in Township County. Com- 
monwealth ol Pennsylvania, containing approximately acres ol 

land. Deing the same more or less, ana improvements hereinafter re- 
len-ed to as the Property as shown on a survey attached hereto as 
Exhibit A. and descnoed by legal descnpiion attached hereto as Exhibit 

B. and prepared by Registered Land Surveyor. 

and irtciuding the depiaed m photographs and de- 

scnbed by t^e accompanying nan-ative which are attached hereto and 
made a part hereof as Exhibtt C: and 

WHEREAS, the Propeny is located vnthin the 

National Register Historic District and the United States Deoanment of 
ttie Inienof has certified that the Propeny contnputes to the significance 
of said district: and 

WHEREAS, the is highly visible from 

a well-traveled scenic road which passes nu- 

merous resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places: and 
WHEREAS. Grantors desire lo preserve tne natural, scenic, 
and histonc state of the Property: and 

WHEREAS. Grarrtee is a publidy supporled chanty, recog- 
nized as such under Section 170(h)(3) and Section 2522lal of the 
Internal Revenue C^e organized for the purpose of preserving histonc 
sites, natural areas, and areas imponant to the management oi water 

NOW THEREFORE. Grantors tor and in consideration of 
the sum of FIVE DOLLARS ($5 001. lawful money of the United States 
of Amenca. the receipt wrhereof is hereoy acKnowiedged. and intending 
to be legally bound, hereby grant declare, and covenant as follows 

1 Grantors hereby unconditionally and absolutely grant and 
convey unto Grantee its successors and assigns a Deri>elual Easement 
in Gross, to have and to hold the same for the purpose ol perpetually 
conserving and protecting in accordance with this Grant and Declaration 
Irom any actions by Grantors, their successors and assigns which would 
adversely affect the histonc. scenic, and natural resource values of the 
Propeny subject to the Qualifications hereinafter set fonn 

2 In order to accomplish the intent ol the Grant and Dec- 
laration set fonh in paragraph i aoove. and tne resincnons ano cov- 
enants referred to therein. Grantors hereby declare ano impose the 
following resinctions upon the use ana enioyment of the Prooerty 

A No inoustnai activities shall be conaucieo or per- 
mitted on the Property 

B No building snail tie placed, bunt or mamiained on 
the Propeny. other than the existing structures wnicn may be mainiainea 
as provided tdr in paragraph 3 

C, No signs, billboards or outooor advertising struc- 
tures shall be placed erected or maintained on the P'openv other than 
signs not exceeding twelve inches by eighteen inches for each of the 
following purposes 

III ic state tne nameol the Property and the 
names ana aaoress ol ine occuoanis 

MM 10 aaveriise an activiiv oermmed under the 
provisions ot mis Gram ana Deciaranon 

mil to post the Prooerty againsi aaivities either 
prohibited or not si^ecificaiiy permmea unoer me provisions of this Gram 
and Declaration: and 

iivi 10 aovertise me saie or lease of the Properiv 

Providea however mai mis sub-paragraph C shaii noi 
limit the nght of Grantee to cisplay on tne Property at its discretion such 
signs as It may cusiomaniv use to laeniify lands under conservation 
easement or agreement lo Gramee ano tne terms ot sucn easement 
or agreement 

D No Quarrying excavation, or removal of rocKs min- 
erals, gravel, sand, topsoii or other similar maienals from the Property 
shall occur 

E No depositing dumping, or abandoning of any solid 
waste or |unk shall occur on me Propeny 

F No cutting or removing ol trees is pemmtled ex- 
cepting those which are taiien deaa aiseased or dangerous 

G No sutxjivision ot me Property shall occur 

H No construaion or placement ol any structures or 
works thereon including sheds public or pnvate roads, driveways, park- 
ing lots, pipelines, poles, any other laciiities normally used in conneaion 
with supplying utilities or removing effluent, or any otr>er impervious 
surfaces shall occur 

3 In addition to the restnctions and covenants imposed on 
ttie use and enioyment of the Propeny by paragraph 2. supra, and in 
order to accomplish the intent of the Grant and Declaration as set forth 
in paragraph 1 . Grantors declare to impose forever the following re- 
stnctions and covenants upon the use and enjoyment of the 

except with it>e pnor wnnen approval of the Grantee, its 

successors or assigns, which approval shall be given only to tt>e extent 
that the intent of the Grant and Declaration as sat forth in paragraph l 
and prior secOons of this document is not violated: 

A No construaion alteration, or remodeling or any 
other activity shall be undenaKen or permitted lo be undenatten on tfie 

which would alfect either the extenor surfaces 

herein descnbed. or increase the height or alter trie extenor street 
facades (including without limitation extenor walls, roofs and chim- 
neys) or the appearance ol the building located thereon, insofar as they 
are depicted in photographs and described in accompanying narratives 
in Exhibit C, or which wouid aoverseiv affect the structural soundness 

of the Provided tiowever that this sut>-paragraph A 

shall not limit the reconslruction repair repainting or refinishing of pres- 
ently existing parts ol elements ol the damage to which 

has resulted Irom casualty loss oeienoraiion, or wear and tear, without 
the prior wntten approval ol Grantee provided that sucn reconstruction. 
reoair. repainting or refinishing is performed in a manner which will not 
alter the appearance ot those eiempnts ol the buildings subiect to this 
Gram and Declaration as they are as of this date 

8 No sandblasting or other forms of abrasive cleaning 
shall be unoertaKen on me exienor of me _^^^^^_^^ Any other 
cleaning process must be aoproveo by Grantee prior to the empioymeni 
ol the process on the exterior ol the 

C No oami ol a ouauty or color significantly different 
t'om that presently existing snail be usee on me exienor tnm ol the 

Providea however tnai Grantor may restore to its 

original conoition ano appearance me extenor tnm and wooOworK to 
the extent that the ongmai condition ana appearance can be determined 

D In the eveni ol damage resulting Irom casualty loss 

to an extent rendering repair or reconslruction ol me existing 

impracticable erection ol a structure ol the same size bum ana 

design as the aamagea structure me oesign of which shall be subiect 
to prior approval by Grantee snail be permitted 


pT-t'Sc'Tidruin Ej-seTTiL'Tits 

- Grantors agree at an times to maintain the lot ana struc- 
ture herein oescnDeo ana tne exterior appearance ot the 

iinciuamg, without limitation, tne exterior wans roofs, and chim- 
neys ot the Duiiamgs locatea thereoni m a good ana souno state ot 
repair suDiect to the casualty loss provisions m suP-paragrapn D of 
paragraph 3. supra 

5 Nothing herein shall be construea as a grant to the gen- 
eral public or to a person or persons other than Grantee, its servants, 
successors or assigns or its auly auihonzea agents, ot the ngnt to enter 
upon any parts ot the Property Grantors reserve unto themselves ana 
their successors in title to the Property all rights privileges, powers 
ana immunities in respect to the Property, inciuOmg, without limitation, 
the nght ot exclusive possession ana enpymem subieci only to the 
restrictions ana easements herein set forth, ana the terms and cove- 
nants of this Grant ana Declaration 

6 Grantee shall have the right to enter upon the Property 
set forth herein to inspect tor violations of the atoresaia provisions; to 
remove or eliminate any such violations ana to perform such restoration 

as may be Oeemed necessary to restore the lana ana the 

to their prior condition after removal ot saia violations Grantee 

shall have the nght to seek any legal action or remedy at law or in 
equity to enforce the provisions set forth herein ana granted hereunder, 
including, without limitation, by the remedies ot specific performance 
or iniunction In the event Grantors are found to have violated any ot 
the obligations. Grantors shall reimburse Grantee, its successors or 
assigns tor any costs or expenses incurred in connection tfierewith. 
including court costs and attorney s fees 

7 G rantee shall be under no obligation to maintain the Prop- 
erly or pay taxes or assessments hereon. 

8 Grantors hereby agree to request in wnting at least thirty 
(30) days prior to the closing of any sale or transfer ot legal title to the 
Property, or the commerKement of the term ot any long term (ten years 
or more) lease ot the Property, a written instrument from Grantee stating 
that Grantors are in compliance with the terms and conditions of this 
Grant and Declaration, or it Grantors are not in compliance with ttiis 
Grant and Declaration, stating what violations ot this Grant and Dec- 
laration exist Grantee agrees in such cases or at any other time to 
execute acKnowledge and deliver to Grantors, to any mortgagee trans- 
feree, purchaser or lessee ana to any title insurance company issuing 
policy of title insurar>ce with respea to any estate or interest in or lien 
upon the Property, a wntten instrument concerning compliance within 
thirty (301 Oays ot written request from Grantors Grantors shall proviae 
a copy of Grantee s compliance statement aatea not more than ninety 
(90) days preceding the date of execution ana aelivery ot any agreement 
of sale, long term lease or mortgage with respect to the Property, to 
the purchaser, mortgagee or long term lessee hereunaer ana shall 
advise the Grantee in wnting at least ten (tO) days in advance ot the 
closing ot any transfer of legal title to the Property or the commencement 
of the term of any long term lease ot the Property Any reasonable 
costs incurred by the Grantee in determining compliance and advising 
Grantors as to compliance, all of which shall be billed to Grantors 
simultaneously with the delivery to Grantors of Grantee s compliance 
statement and costs it any incurred as a result of Grantors failure to 
notify Grantee of transfer sale assignment or long term lease ot the 
Property shall be paid by the Grantors their heirs ana assigns Grantors 
and each subsequent owner of the Property shall have no personal 
liability for the observance or performance ot the covenants and obli- 
gations ot Grantors hereunaer after such party has conveyed his. her. 
Its or their interest in the Property. 

9 Grantee and any succeeding assignee of Grantee s in- 
terest herein as provided for in paragraph 1 1 hereof, shall have the 
right to assign, either wholly or partially, its nght. title and interest 
hereunder to any public agency having and performing governmental 
functions, or to any publicly supportea chantable organization descnbed 
in Section 170(h)(3) and Section 2522(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 

•3 I' a! any time anv organization agency or person having 
rights or Duties hereunder as Grantee wnetner as a party either onginai 
or succeeding as hereinafter set forth shall fail to fully enforce the 
easement ana restrictions set forth m this Grant ana Declaration. Gran- 
tor or anv Qovemmentai unit of County shall have the 

right to bring sun against Grantee lor specific performance. 

1 1 In the event Grantee snail cease to be an organization 
aescnbea m both Section 170(h)(3) ana Section 2522(a) ot the internal 
Revenue Coae then us rights ana auties hereunaer shall succeed to. 
ana become vested in and fail upon the following named entities to the 
extent they shall evidence acceptance of ana fully enforce same, in trie 
following oroer' 


C or such other organization having similar purposes 
to which such rights and duties shall be awarded under the doctnne of 
cy pres by a Court of competent lunsdiction: proviaed lyjwever. that at 
the time ot such acceptance, such entity shall C>e either an organization 
described in Section 170(h)(3) and Section 2522(a) of the Internal Rev- 
enue Code or a public agency performing governmental functions. 

12 The provisions hereof shall mure to and be binding upon 
the heirs executors administrators, devisees successors and assigns. 
as the case may t>e. of the panies hereto and shall be covenants running 
with the land 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and again stating their intention 
to be legally bound hereby, ttie said parties have hereunto sat their 
hands and respeaive seals the day of 





Appendix 11. 

Sample Easement: PHPC 
(to follow) 


zi i. o -5 c : i ^ 

<i •! ? 1 ' 1 1 r 

- ^ ^ 1 1 5 >-1 
(J S S" ll 

c S J I «-, 

.r o ^ S -" 
'5 ^ c " S 
? =^ I & §• 

.= "3 

5 c 

3 =i 

c e 


4, C - >, — 

£ S 1 5 s 

r c s ° 

2 5? 



c -a i 

-O '■ ^ e C 

" ,-■■ -S e "" 

c c w c •. 

C £ "> c £ 

S ™ 2 .2 = 

4> *- - r; t^ 

= s 5 y = 

5-5 si £. 

C- - C •: 
_&- = :£ 

= i! -5 ? ?; 

^ S ^ - = 

'. T r t c 

■S LLSr 

5 Ck 2 c = 

^ "fl j^ > ^ 

p jc 4; ^ " 
.E - •£ ^ E 
~ s w c = 

c 2 o£ = 

>,5 c e2 

c 5 * S ~ - 
o ~ >» ? ^ c 

•= -5 S * c « 
■;; = c 5 «„ 
£ .s o 2 £ ^ 

" 5 r E - 
= s: o c ~ j^ 

>* X c •= - — 

• ='- ™ -■ I/. il 
6/ r 

^ 2 -o i - £ 

X .£ I £ * 

2 fc ^ £ 2 

— C ^= CO 

9 C O 

.■I i ~ 

C X b E 

«/ " E £ 

r^ Q> 0^ 

Of & b C 


c c -r m 
> « O c 
^ k- u( o 

O ooc .= 
^ I £ S. 

r E 



•O i 


5 ^ 
2 £ 


•S f 


£• £ 

■* 1; 2 "3 

k- c 

■g =^ ™ 

X ^ 

— X 

' i -S ^• 

2 C 



c S •= 

c £ c. 

= = = 

S Ll 

£ =^-g r 

OS : X 

^ :^ ^ 

•^ "^ t/> 

S-S s 2 

'i^ £ a/ 


- S S 

« -o = •= 

■■3 S- 

< 5i 


»t = 

o P p 
• — _ ^ c 

— X « 

X — I. 
X = = 

X ^ ^ *- 

^ = -3 

K X C «/ 

" aj .2 i: 

"S 2! 

c s 

^ X M 

■o « 

« -a >, 

_« £ g 

I — 3 .C 

ISx s 

& = •? 

c fc ™ 

■= ? 3 li 

a.* tj 


■: c £ <N 

•c Xb i! ^ 
^ c V 2 

3 O * 

— " « 

■; 1; 3 

X X 2 

6 *" O 3 


■£ 5 


x-2 £- 

•c 2 a 2 

Si D-t: s 

>" «; "* b _ 

— X "a X 6 

o - c - .2 

1. s <• «< .r 

o o <« o ■" 

— ^ c _ c 
c o '* C o 


— c 


E > 

^ Se2 ^ 

g 0= !C 

„ o »> •" S 

" I ■£ i 5 

9! J> O c 
!2 c c Z. 

» &« s 

— S X "S 
«• -s S.a_ 

o o " *9 
g £ MIO 
5 ^ ^ t/ 

i.E £ :; 

£ O _ -0 

« i 2 ^ 

■2 c-^ 
^ S: i 

, c c 5 

i^ E 
II i 


> C 1/ >- 

o 2^.2 

•c (J ^-C 

- S S u 

X ti n c 


o a. 3 c 


■S £ X t, 
gx "> ^ 

S =^S 
•« *" — c* 

•g o s c 





c i 


,Z o 

< - 

y -3 

c a: i 

fee H 

O UJ - 

■=•0 * 

- J, E 
X 5 cc 



'. ■'^ ~ 
£ c '■ 

= 7 
c i 



— 0~ 

c ■" 

^£ s 

r E X 

i~S o 

li i 

2 w 3 

£ ° .£ 



« 5 

CO •« J- 

p t: 
c Z 

.2 = 

— E 
5 '^^ 



c 3< "• 
O X - 


X i " 

3 2 

5 >.S 

ft! -n Cb 

C S = 
n O o 

I c-° 

c r W 

11 = 

= t; -c 5 

- '^ - E 


o •- ^ 

S= c o 

?;<£ 2 

o = = 

X -c 

o C± 



4> E 4n 

X g £ 

Or !S t: 

X a> 0/ 

■;■£ 2 



m )Q .^ 

.a I 

w lit 4' 



•c -s = 

s; =-6 
H " s >- 

•o E o — 

V (". P 

o s 

2 S 
— o 



6£ -^ 3 "D Z 

o 5 ? J: ^ c 

«:f £ c - £ 

■^ ^ "H = I ^ 

X !■ £ c S > 

C <= ;2 - 

C - O »i 

Sf = if I 

E c c a = S 
2 ^* ^ c "° 

,? = a- S o c 

— &i 

X c c'^ o £ 

j: ft — o a, 6; 
— -s c c 5 .^ 

■- '^ ~ O 1^ i 

C -' - w' = D. 
•I U ft 2 X c 

BO- X £ S &/ 

.£ £ ^ £ ("= S 

o f -a - 3 . 

fc = S c S S 

^ 3 :;; «- s X g 

£ o 5 _ i - 

1 ° 

e E * . 
& -2 £ ^^ 

i3 > o^ 
w, £ c r 
X S-2 ^ 
c c^2 X 
Z "2 £ ■> 
o " c ^ 

IP- = 

2 C Mi 
60 j; c <" 

^ O O (A 


^ O 0. _ -^ 

5 — le c > 

" — O ifl 

- - a. 3 ly 
X s *- w ^ 

60 s 3 ^ 5 

•c c o. c CI. 
^ 5! It «"" 

-12 i; >.^ 

- .£ c = o 
Q-x 5 3 I- 

S £1. £^ 
>,^ s; - = 

£ 6 ^ = c 
S = -a .= _- 

" I i •= i 

2 2 <x"5 


-2c2 = _2 7'' '"^ 

0/ C E 

- O g 4, 
0, ^ g — 

I :: I i e i S £ ^ i o 

3 i r; = I 5 .2 - = I o 

s ^ : i t - g !s 1 1=^ 
i .^ 2 1 - 1 1 f ^ § = 

■^"^ s o "^^^ '^ ~ " ~ 

I " ^ = .2 > U 2 3 ,£ 'S 



" 2 s; "o = 3 s^ > ci 4, g 
£ .£ -s >^ ^ " js «; £ i. 

C~£r™-3T>T3 c „&• 
>>~£t'xC-~i'C SP:= 

og-5£v,2g = E-ci. 

£ a.ct ™ I >..£ 1 S 3 ,>- 
= c = = cx = = >'^ = 

fe r •» :c o £ 

' !5 S X ~ 

w „ £ £ 2 o 
.= u t; e- ^ 5 S 
"" o " "5 S E »o 

*= ■= sf s ~ £ = 

c -D " ™ o s S" 

% ™ c 5o B f 

« -a " ^— ^ *" 

S c E X — -T^ - 


•as - v> « c _i 

£ |-1 s 1- ss .£ 

_2 a. O. ^-o i-g 
X "o E ^' w £ c 

" £ S 3 S- 2 
c " ^ 60 r o '5 

s £ •» s f- £ S 

- o . .2 §■ I i o 

o &„•£■- S 2 c 

£ £ X -2 ».o so 


thereafter erecl on 1 
any street on or off 
uding height, bulk, 
n Maple and 15th 

ippearance of Ihe 
shall be Ihe restore 
Properly promptly 
Is given il under 


ed o 

r shall 
seen f 
s local 

shall a| 
all Ihe 


- ^ S > 





ce of wh 
storic bu 
ic Oistri< 

1 of such 
nd 2(b) a 
er shall f 
tee shall 



the ar 
the hi 

> 2(a) a 
tf Own 
, Gran 


£•■£ o S( 



*« — ^ 3 

8 &•>-§ 


ilding th 
tisisleni ' 
nd color 
sple Ave 

h I'aragr 
e Proper 
his Secti 


r .ii X - . 

Xi -o ^ j: -•■ 


rty an 
rty is 
ma ten 
s in th 

rty to 
ed un 
n 5 be 

t; "M 3 O 

Cm >9 it iTt 

c " •- £ -.Xa,_o 


« = c^£^S!:^c- 


?■£ s 12 S ™ -S^^J *^'° 

V x^a* 60. ca* 

3S-n — 7ooS»'^ 


= y< X u &. U 
*fl 4( •;; > K ^ 

JL8f _ _ 

• "o — E s 


■^ >, 

b b- 



« eI 5; 

(3 ■£ ^ o . c 

" c " £i3| I" 

O X 



r n c ^ 11 i^ 
3^ T3 J J; > |. 

i3 3 6 I X ?: 

""SO— "■"•2-> 
£i £ c 6ox 2| 

C 0; tg 6 

» _ C " 60 C t 

O^ £ S= " ° 
_ o £._ -S * >^ 

S > — O > t! 

M> - •= * £ -=• 

C -0 o " « 01 

=5 g =:£ J 1^ 
£ - fe r - S - 

* 1. :^ 2 — £ 
•2|X fc ^^ ^3 


= £-5 g| c S - 

E M^O J, ° " 2 m 

™ t: y X c - c " 
'^ fc .£ k. -5 c £ c 

" I X .£ I ^ f £ 

5 3 * £ = H - 



f« c ■ - 

c£ *^ 

1 i 1 1 

i-5 -c £ 

2 =1 S 

c 3 ■- 2 
S r oU 
* o t: «/ 
X $ = - 

•^ = i| 

£ >-o $ 

in ^ 60^ 

■g^ ■= ^ 
J X * = 

o s c 

£■£ = 

•a « E £ 

». — c 

o i« " 




S .2 O 2 

'^ •§.§!. 

X ,2 is J 

o •£ 
"- o 

"5 i- 

- £ •= ^ 5 

^ — £ « u 

^ ft c £ - 

i2,?! 2 E 

£-73 •• • 

- £ »! = ^ 

C Q. ill * C 

- £ £-5 t 

Q O. a. M r 
8.0 o -i 

" X — t ^ 

' u i 

o S 

* f ^ I £ 

« — O o ^ 

- 1 "I i^ o 

:fx Sgs 

° c-g-C c 
o = = " •= 


£ b n 

f "?; -p ? S. 

|x 5 o^ 

60 Ol 

•O M5-C 

_ !2 "S 3 

ft* ^ > ^ e 
:£ 2 2 -3 I 

J. > — w w 

^2=.g £ 


5 5 


4,- 5 C ^ D 

■D fc " .£) E 

_3 5 — ™ fc 

5-5 v-"" ^ 

. 5 x - ^ 

S( ;; u <>. o 

o § S 3 a. 

f i: "E K H 

X ^ - - 

3 t 

■^ ? > I - (■= 
- ?! E-r. 

>: )' x u _ 

ee n — — 

'5 ^ >N 

c =5 = " S o ^ 

•2 -5 "2 = ^iZ 

t 5; " *" X OB'S 

^ 1 I - S I g 

>^ w 4, . X ^ J, 

^ ?■ c S = O ^ 
= F 3 > 2 & -o 

•- > _ M 1" 5 3 

i =";; §:° =i 

^ -■ ^ ""^ ^ c S 

3 -S ■ 

i' — 2. ? i S< »< 

1 5 i I i •- ■£ ■ 



2 J :g 

"^ ™ J. 

•£ 2 >- 
£ ci 
= 2^ 

JZ " — 

oeS 2 

C 6C ^ 
>, > — 

c b *;; 
< a.x 


= U 

I- O ae 

Z < lu 

5 = ''J 

at - at 

C £. e- 


.2 = 


■1 S 

■=1 ^>,ii o 
* "2 '5 1 3 ^ 

^ *^ ^ yj ft* f3 
' S c = = =S - 

c : E s -s J 

£ e gx 5; s; 

u 0/ U 3 c 6 

■Ox X i "go 


"* »p «( <« S - 
u S u u c u 

ec c c S } u 

"2 X X S'O* 

« e .£ 6 - - 
«<■ •" o £ ^ 

s * s 

c - w * i; 
_• O p fc „ ^ 

3 X o if, ~ a 

1 no- UJ 'I 

J = 

_ --£3 

r 5 C ^ ~ 

o "^ oe 

^ fc J; S X 4! 7 

> - --s ^^ = 

^ ^ — O "fl -* y 

^ c X ■- a* i; * 



m — 01 
S C tl 

o 8 * 

1 1 

3 "S 



< a 
S2"S i 






































o * 

- < a. 

^ UJ VI 

4: < E 

c J- > 

^ :3 

r- 0/ 

2 w 

o ■£ 
— so 



Ol lA 


UJ . — c^ 

b t . 

< Js in tr c> 


c j; - 
•c ~ — 

2 O c * t, -o 

S c ^ n - " 

= = oe S > r^ 

§:2 .£ = * = 

"■ »-• "S r 3 2 

fe ? ^ 1 '^ -S 

I -^ -5 : " ^ 

a," o. c c -5 •= 
■I c I --5:^ 

■2 .2 £ 


^ bb 

I 8 I i I' 
""o - - t. 

K i I « o " 

■2 = i ' S ^ 
£ -a z s t £ 

2 S « 

■5 £ .S « 
" £ «; r ~ 
c ™- ^ •= 2 

- c £ ^ £ 

i ~ as £. " 
£^ . S-o 

^ ^ OC , i 

= = 5 »i '■ 

•= 5 ;Z = X 

if ill 

5 I 2 - > 

?, ^..■a J; 

^ .= «. "2 

■- ■= S .2- o 

r; Cx C D. 

c - i; -o c 

X c — 
; r c •» o 

— -o .J xi l: 

X E ■; "S C 

^''^■^ S £ . 
XX c c .4; J< 

'•>?;.= S c^ 5 

: = ^ o i i 

■? c 

O w 

S - ^ c .2 c 



^ a, 2 c 

X X fe V 

■^■2-5 2 

=- V <u 

< ^ -^^ 

-^^ s E .. 

^ " 2 

= i; . 

i X -D .= o U — 

5 " BCX 60 

'- 5 E ^ .5 

S 2 ■; ^ i 

£ _ ui X 
^5 .= ^ 

2 o 

c i- 

c a. 

c - 

1 = 

C -D 

C >N 

.2f M 

O -S 

C 3 

o o 

*0 -O w 

c: j! L 

X 2 
x; £■£ 


fci ^' 

> !■ " 

i 2 o 

.2 £.« 
c 5 •= 

9! - 

X Ci.-X 


E S 



O 3 _ 

'= - V 

5j ^ .a. 


^ _ ^ 

C — X 

Ll ^1:2 

- g ^ 

o c 


E § F 

C J- c 

"2 ^ tu 

Sf - 

_ O 6. 


=f2 S 

X .« o 
2 S 

wO E 

2 it'' 

8 i 

£ o 

D. -S X -D ■£ 

.0 5 ^ = r 

c £ » c o &- 
O a* * « ^ «/) 

£ o ^ c ~ li 
E «. 5 •• E S. 
5 " -S 2 •■= o 

■= o 8t3 2 a. 

O „ T3 ' 

•^^ i - - ™ 


■if § ^ 
o '^ 5 
i - 5 

E , „ 

_ B = = ^ 

i s^. 

5 8sf 

7 u X 

o « r 

C -J 4! 

_ O X "O 


: 5 3 2 S g 
■'^^ o * " 

&y S- S._- = 

■£ J 73 5 S.^ 

J i! So =^- 

= ^ 

i Z 

'5 e 2 ■ 


6^ o 

3 X 

= - _ C = 

J3 <= o c 

i^ — £ - -* 
■£x'S=^-H E 2 O.MO 

i"S^x-i £.ri° &i fI 

- ■£ 

i ■" -D X 

- -S E = S S ■£ 

o S ?! I ■= 
? 1 I O S 

5. 41 ™ ,. S < 
- £ 5 -2 g * ■ 
E E 0.-S 5 

S »o 0.2.E .t 

= = E 

£ 6 ■= E r S2 = 

2:ocS = !^cP-5 

iq t" <0 iL 

«/— CC .73i«'^ 0;— C 

= &aiFo*'j->' 
F •? c fe * i ■q.'S >- 

> g = •! 


3 O c a S 

E r 

_ c - 

£•5 2 

o J — 




" c _ 

« o _, • 

c 5 c a 
= S -x ^^ 

M 1^ 

^ £ LS^i 

3 «; s .E = 3 

5 c " -S -2 •• 
i Sl^x 5- 

S -^ * s s. 

c ■" <t ■= -o -a 
o - S ^S 5 

— X — t C yi »i 

S 2 £ g.-2 I § 

S « w g- ™ 5 T3 

O X 

S * 


E Sf 

> > 

I; " 


^ s 



fc > > " O O. 

1 ■ S'' « ? K 
I" 2 S- o = be 2 

O 0; « ^ Ifl *- ~ 

S '5 "g "3 E a.-g 
Ifl J||l 

— c ™ £ o 2 

2 j: 3 « _ o o 

5 ■g|;S 

j:| X £ X - - E C 
oLs .£ 3 o 

o g o I E .S-5 «* 

5 • E '5 -f "S S o 
0. c .£ 3 -^ .ii S g 

= |i!>^ *J E 2 

>" §-" g 2 E - S. 

c — -^ o o « 

c 3 J E c Z «, 4; 

s; -3 s t M . £ i 

1=3 * 
! J-2 


.2 3 ~ 15 3 5 *" o 

•a - 

.0 > 

"2 > 2 ? S. 


C 3 -D ^ 
'Zd'O — P 

o £ 3 4, 

" !r C fc 
^ ec 00 a> 

fc j= 

c - 

> O 



< c 


I ? 

I. so 


= ■§ 

!2 S 

— -a 


•2 = 5 
8 S I 


f8 , 

c a, ■ 

1 « 

'i SP 



— — -o 

c a< <:' 

« sP S 

m a, ri " 

™ £■;.:§ 

'C V 2 * 

f S 

■O Z _ > 

,c -c E ~ 

c 3 Z 5 
G -^ v^ ■- 

s S! e 



8 I 5 

B a::. 

2 6 «^ 

»■ j; c 2 

w o .2 5 

* -is t; E 

I X n !^ O 

E o o E 

a .£ o o 

" c V £ S 

. &. o -c "a 

O S c- !« 
u. j: b -D E 


, ^ ™ a. O 

2 - J .2 X 

c S-£.fe 


i; = 


2 5 
I- s 

2 _- 

= J s 

OC 4i .E £ ^ 

■i i i C -^ 

■g •^ t E .2 
= £ 2 8! :; 

t X - >j 4, 


Jl "^ X u. ■"= 




<^ c .2 ^i = 

^ ,^ — O Gj 


• o 2 — jc 



cer who ; 
k,a corpo 
g Consen 
signing 1 








Ilh day of 
1 M Offi 
Good Ban 
e foregoin 
Ilained by 






led Ih 
in con 



On Ihis, 
inaMy app 
ileni of A 

so, execu 
OSes Ihcre 
Vice Pros 








2 I 

< s 





o 3 
5; £ 
= i 

■o t ^ ~ It — «. 
c 6. -a o -2 " b „ 

" c^'Si S £ ^ E " 

= " - ^" I S- 

a = "r •£ >• S »> ^ 

^§t sl^-^- 
o -■ ?■ n 


o-f-^O E 1 go 
"5 £ o U o 

- ^ - -o .2P2 
50X o "O 



■"-•€ s 2 't! ?*.£ 2 



5 i -f b: jc 

■ 5 C- - »; ^C 
>^ > o g C 4, ^ 5 ,^ 

«c<iO = >oOc 

^•S OH-qX— Hb 


■2 c jss: 

O ii K r- 

c E in u .2 •» 

^1^ If 

eouJ «. 

c D > 

o< 3 

^ = i 


5 « 

c o a 
E £ S 

2 J£ 

T3 JS'S 

2 5.B 

7 B- 
— _ c 

s; o 

o •= 

£ 's " 5 

>._ = 

fC £ c b. 

'* 5 



e ™ "^ u> 
r^ o " 4* 



k I 

^ E 2 

I -S 1 1 1 

u o u S .a 

^S 2-= 
5 ^ c •> 
E -^ S £ 


? £ ^o 

41 f 0* *e ^ 

cs ae K c w 

= 2 

= ^ J2 

•1 fl 

•e .£ r 

I- ? r 

^- & -2 


l!l c 

l£;£ C 

D £ 




c ", 
(A -o 

i .. 

I- lU 


a z 

= S?! 


ir ^ as 
~. Ir r' 
2 = - 

.5 s! -s .X 

se o-o = w 
c «>«>•• E 
•5 E "2 '' Z 
.2 c > & S 

4 I »■ - 6 s 

;j 2 ^ i .2 •« 

t |;S i-E =^ 

5 i ■: L>= -i 

te " fc 2 i k- 
^ ><- ft> = e 

I E El-= £ 

E i 


•2.5 tj 

■o •« is? 



2 <" 

E "O 

I : 

^ £^ C' 

I 1^ IS S| S.| 

B = « « » 

CU iaC. ( 


c •> E £ 

^ .2 ^ = •= c. 

"5 o £ .5 S 2 c 

IS-fS-fu 2 

11 III N 

f-s .E >-= £ o 
g-o . S.« g e 

c ■= y c ai 3 

1 ^ 2 E 8 "S £ 
e36 £ 2 S = 

2 ". 5 * = " •£ 
? « ^ 1 2 - f 

= "^•11 = 5 
■£ 3 S. = •£ E B 

Z :^ 1 ^ - f I- 


5 8 

£.■0 .£ 
£ S i 

^8. 8 

c £ -O 

o I . o 
E-0.5 S 

60 «^ b §■ 

.£ c ™ 

C s> -= = 2 5" *• 

^ 1= = J S ■« .E 

s , t ^ 

- = Jc "2 

fc = . c c 

— oa ^ — a: 

« E c - = 

*• 2 — - •= 


o.E c 

E S ,0 

Si f 

ft> y u 
■c .2 .£ 
U B.-0 

»i C J. .. . 

VI . - O «< 

•- S » := s 

£ -2 -o -D 2 

r; o " " 5 

O * b- ^ oi 

"= c o > •• 

js c = ° i 

^ ** &i b b 

U ^ Z ac X 

.E 8 £ .2 I 
■i ~ -c ■= = 

Sit 21 

BL ae E S c 

S - c J5 

2 26 li 

E .£ T3 ^ X 

•- S 2 = 'i 
5^ g--2 

>s£ S i E 

c 4; 2 o S 
9 ^-n 5.0 
I Z I Bt- 

tl 5 If 
■S I 5 o .2 

■a .£ s " ^ 

2 '° 

5.-E 2 E 

c .li E .5 

— B — ^ JC 
■O ~ B C •> 

f •« !^ ■= E 

1 E c ■' = 
.£.:2. o, J g_ 

£ ■? """ £ 
£ i x c ^ 

■i S c 3d o 
i - w ■" 

:: ! 1 .5 -g 

o B S 2 5 


■" -5 I <» ■= 

E 5^- = 

.i >-": ? .£ 

£ g- ' y •- 

E S-5 £ 

s^£| SI 

2 1131 1 

■a 2- ae c <*= 


^ o-S-c S'S 
o 5; = 5 £ g 

B x> J< 2. ei i 
•"•"•? c - 2 

c c S o iS ! 

te X B ^ 

g -a -ii *" 2 
2I £x = 

E JS-c 2 ^ 
S X " 22 

-jgil ? 

wi *^ < •■ w 

F = ^ r 

*' ** ui C ^ 

"S "5 i ^ — 
I si-Is 
■5 .2- a ^ -2 

B ~ ^ 5 

3 -a - >s = 

iSiO^ I 

£ lA <- .^ ^ 

•Sb ° E = 

E c 

X S 

^ B 
X ^ 

J - 


•c = 


£ ? 

_ e 
B ^ 

> -s 

.: £ 41 > 

s !*!••« 


B eei: 6.0 
ft-.E r" o - 
2 S S.S 
= £" ^ S 


E o w p g 


Uie- 5 


- I 

*! >• 

— t 2 E E o, ?. 

■S = .i 1 :2 -S E 

§"• :i 01 a. * * 8 
^ £ = =S 2 £ >. 


S.'0 8 a. £ 2 S: o 

15 si 

— — w ai. ' 

o -= *? r~ 

— ^ ^ 5 flj o ^ 
Jj c I. ^ *" ^ ^ 

2 X. 
















2 2 



i s c o g > R 

<= = i-g ?-5 = 

™ :• ? S f I S 

>: N -5 _ ™ " e 

i ^ s 2 i: S 

■2 = -^ §, g., -T 

», 2 c K >" c S 

Z g-E »> c ' 0, 

T :: I r I rT s 

^ o -o c o 1; 3 

^ n "S S 9 E - 

U t C J i i -5 

^ c i >l o 5 

■2 J *■ o c ~ &• 

J!! . - S. 2 >• »>" 

o ee.2 etfj 5 .^ 

». .E 7 " i. » ■= 

8 a. E i = 07 

i 2 E <= 9 S 2 

E ^ s: O £ -2 ^ 

1 s ril 11 

S 5 £ 3 i 9* i! 
H •• 5 o S S s 


— j: ^ 2 ^~ 

._ S s fc e E ^ 

s Ti ■" ^ 
?■=•{; •• - 

si 1"S ^ 
I e| "5 

g S E .2 8 

It ?il 

>^.E — c > -s 

t: ™ - s Si •- 

<« = — s 

= 1: 

I 2"2S 
— j:: c5 

.S! £ -B 41 

i- S c f 

&! — " ~ 

&■ et i« o 

■a>| o £ 

£0 - .2 T o 
.2 _- ^ •= o - 
= g !•£ v S 

^1 *£« 

i'2| g 11 

- a S "2 I Q. „ 

_ £ p J! ftp -2 

g^ g e E 2 « 

w ^ — ^ <• »< 3 

c o 2 T: V S ■; 

S S S i! -a g- 1 
^■^S"2 S ™-2 

1 ~ «<•{; o S 8 

£ £ E * 5 a. c 
= «. 2 ="5 = ■? 

Jx •£ 4 b ^ c 
— in b ■ > <I 

. X X n 2 

' r SiS -g 
I bc^ E & 

g <fl € 6C . 

I g<« 

2 — >N b 

■^ ^ S • 
e ■ n K 
< E E€ 

5 "E 8 "• £ ^ 

va.— ""Ji^- 
s= *-S Si fe* 

a. C E ? o.-g "5 g 



= J£ o a.7 * 2 "O 
~" .2 £ Clx "5 o 3 

^ S = :•=>.•£ 8 


:i'£l'£x > 

i &! K-gt 



2 2 

' n - ^3 

I P •• a. b 



^1 I 

£ XI G 
5 £ = 
£ - JSP 

2 1 

f II 


£lc2 = ?=-S22 = 


I £ w ^ » «^ 60 


E E 

■5 I 



* p g S.|£ 
o St= g 2 

,2 c " " P - 


"• (J »rt li 

p| ?■? £ c 

II Nil 

■ o . S o = 



1-1 = 

S E .t: = c t: 


g -S ° 

- >S " fe »• 

^l = i - 

!< s = : 1 
•= -2. S £ "S 


= c )< r M 

J = a S.S 

t; £ .E c x; 

u Z.tst. 

5| i cSp 

M U ■* P ^ £ 

c A = r ^ = * 
-. I i £ £ -5 § 

E a, c aj -2 x: * 

= 11 1 g ^ s 
a o 8 t 3<=£ 



gig Tc 2 
S ^ ! g 10 o g 

A - s o .5 c g -a - 
J8!! 2^:8 S| 


c 'a. 


■o S o 

c « « 
.t ^ 6C 

■n O C 


= «£ 
x: -.2 = 
1-2 3 

« ° 8:^ 

C S «A W 

£ Edi S 

5 41 3 

E I3S 

1 .t: ^ c 

2 » « E 

g i - Sill 

X £&■''''«'• = • 
.ii "5 « « g-» rf ■« J -= 

I 111 i t- f l| s 


I £ E I « 8 §■.£ E 5 I 
■o a> 6C.2? £ 2 o E S o 2 

•o X = »» S ~ X .= J " 

S. 8 £ S * E £ ^ <2 =! £ 

I"! = if 1.1.21=1 


§ I 

* o — 

g «-- 



o te 

^ I- " - 

S 2 5 I ^ 

IT ' i 5 ' 

^ i e s J 

^ = a. 


M C 9> 

» o* « *« w 2 


» •-• C ttf f «te 

a. 4< I o • e 

« « c o«» 
.J u a « c e M 

Lj e w -^ 

— « — 

w e e e •> 




§ i 

— c 
£ ^ 
:s § 

S ^ 

1 o f • & f •" 

c t e— eo<« — w o — 

*« » •* k • « « «( 

«^ A £ k 5 lA e« • 

O •! C <• >« W « 

£0 «(e*'« i«e> 

•^V^kMk <«k 

i »— ^ *« ^ 0t k o 

O -^VVkMkW 

— •«>— —M^eik. 

•^ > •» C 9 wo 



f^k— •;«£«, da 
3« e>cO «2b 

1^ o c o ^- «f e &v « b 

w>.« — leo • 


r : : . 


,1 si I 

• w •«•• e 

k « V CMS 

•• c w ■ e 

c k K «> •< e £ 

f M k k -O •« *« 

o>- ■ • 

• e •! 2 

I o w w ( 

^ fc ' 

«9 • ti • e u o 

e k c ^ r 
-t ^ *■* m O Mt k 
— ••— ttsa--* 

a'> k k c c o e 
^ « « • — z ■> 


272 •• 

- 3 

*- o ■- ■ h. 

>H o e ^ . 

* — •-«;— u o » 

^C*jw X'^Ct/'woC C— CO 3 — 

O-L-^^^tfeO*** •<00» CC- 

O > tA tA ^ w 

i:. ^ re 

ex C ■ — Xj •^ ^ 

X - — O «- •» d 


« a. k. 

***• >>*- «-'O^Af£w^Aa£a3C3<«— -oot 

-*- :- cc l.>^<•a<oo»A— •w—x *- — — 

C0*'»-0~'OUU«l^«n .«X > *rtC-DX — • 

4,^01^4, ..^ V*nC(b>N'OM-0<«Xa«( 

«>4i« •0«fti*<'— C— XO e — U«.*4*>H* 

«-•£"- c a(CU«,>oaj^^L.vaw ■^•' '^fw 

Ox^— iCL.k<aw4A*'XOOti«tita.Q«k ■C«««OC3V 

t/>«~«i 2*rf»M» ••-— X A«(3^iOOC 

^Ot^lrt^ XO*'Ca««-'f Wt^ T9 O <« <« ^ X 

• •-ujXL. o^vo •^ok.-*wc a«A «.**.*c w 
xnowaw-oc-o w <«c 3'o'o««ac— ««f<v 
— o*Ao-«C'Uin sefai*- <«eA wa 

£«ftAuwQ •'in^lC— Oi*>'0>s uwf*l«« 

^o>«af — e«rx*i a.--- ^x a;«E'«T9 ^ w 

-"3*rt» «te ^•v<V<OOW«^k. ^ %t f^ M ^ fsi ^^ 

I eo X k. 

3 O ^ O •« £ 

— o 

£ CW££V 'Qw^rs. 

•~ orf < C X 

> U Of . 

X O w •' 

X3oa.— -^o^Of^'^afko^ & 

■Ck-CU — <0O O-S CO" ■- 

__ COOK'S — — tC£^^— XWI 

— XL. I x*wa/«vj« -^t/^— aofc -ooftfo-'tjcX'^'v 
tiA«>h.fat cw^ ./th.^2t/t wofovtc cw ^ ^ 

9^ Oi 0-'C*A31-v>*^>.U— b Wg 0««C— £i^ ** 

- ----- -x* m xo .Ao>.w-— 

o £ e a» o o - 

_ — XO<rt*"'^»'»irto»i**_. 

oX-arcx<->i/^a> ca>cx*-o Sm 

*/»!.— <li>»J3>^'0— C— 0<0CXU.OCTKl 

«■— X"o ooo-oc-- 

___ O— ••— ^ C */* J^ ^ Q *•* - ' - " 

r I 

_ _ O O -< *- 

£ ^ «( e o *>• kA 

I Ot «» <j 4f -^ X b 

O C C^O/w ^»rt^ 

-V C X a « X o 

WW— X OM«--Qt/«w«0«i^ 

wi/ioi ca>cx— o_ 

>v'0 — C— 0«CXk.0 9' 

■ -OO-OC' 

— O C ■-' *# 

"oXtn o 0£ o'XiA «iA«^^^ E 

bc a.owo c _^« 

«-><a-oa •^X'VaiOtfi^Xw 
_«Q,C3<V**" --- -- 

w •- O «« 

w — -O w 


.__ _X«> 0-to.~ '~ 

- >a,o— CC-- _ 

> < 3*«a.—'&«rf ^-kn^o 
ft« w »- -O k. 
"> C UJ c 

: — w t«^ <««-• ^ E^^ 'w « 3X ^w 

AkM k.u^«o «;Xa> o-a>£ jc« >ko 

JD W or O — C 

c -^ *A X o d.«^ a^ £ ^ O 

s-O •rf «l 3 •* 

• ■Ua»*rfOfc-(Srf— -O ££L.>tk. Oif^X-^OfU 

^££ti£Eft/»C'o"*>.*»— Xv-O 3'-*£*rt«»« — 

^Otot «EX«ov« £Ab«>£tAX^k. lAA 

JSkwiA-^ ptl£**3 CfiE >— >>sC 

-jop.o^ 5»-^-^ x^- _ ?£? *•*' **9't _ 5^* 

O -^ ^ O — — W 0»^ ^ G £ £ lA 

— >s C — 

*£ a» ^><»o'o(bL. ~Me£& 

--~w— Cpirt pUOXfCO - 
'- W**»^3W» 

X p w -— rw ■« • 

S e w 

o eac z 

Appendix 12 
Table of Cases Cited 

Dorseyv. Commissioner, 59 T.C.IVI. (CCH) 592 (1990). 

Fannon v. Commissioner, T.C.IVIemo 1986-572 (1986). 

Griffin v. Commissioner. 56 T.C.IVI. (CCH) 1560 (1989). 

Granger V. United States, No. 87-2455-0 (D.Kan. 1988). 

l-lilborn v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. No. 40 (1985). 

Losct) V. Commissioner, 55 T.C.M. (CCH) 909 (1988). 

l\/lcLennan v. United States, 23 Cl.Ct. 99 (1991). 

McLennan v. United States, 24 Cl.Ct. 102 (1991). 

Nicoladis v. Commissioner, 55 T.C.M. (CCH) 624 (1988). 

Par/<inson v. Board of Assessors of Medfieid, 395 Mass 643 (1985). 

Paridnson v. Board of Assessors of IVIed field, 398 Mass 112, 495 N.E. 2d 
294 (1986). 

Racine v. United States, 858 F. 2d 506 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Riclimond V. United States. 699 F. Supp. 578 (E.D. La. 1988). 

Rome /, Ltd, v. Commissioner, 96 U.S. T.C. Reports 697 (1991). 

Symington v. Commissioner, 87, T.C. 892 (1986). 

Tliayer V. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1977-370 (1977). 

Ttie Foundation for tfie Preservation of Historic Georgetown v. Sagalyn, No. 
90-CA10164 (D.C. Super. Ct. 1991). 



Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board. "Fiscal Year 1991 Annual 
Report." Howard County, Maryland, June 1991. 

Allegheny Hotel, Allegheny Motor Hotel, Advertising Brochure. Eagles 
Mere, Pa.: Allegheny Hotel, 1907. 

Andrist, Ralph. American Century: One Hundred Years of Changing Life 
Styles in America. New York: Annerican Heritage Press, Berger, 
Lawrence "Integration of the Law of Easements, Real Covenants and 
Equitable Servitudes." Washington and Lee Law Review (Spring 
1986): 337-368. 

Baltimore Genealogical Publishing Company. "Notes and Queries: 

Historical, Biographical and Genealogical: Contributions to the History 
of Sullivan County." 1970. Mimeographed. 

Berger, Lawrence. "Integration of the Law of Easements, Real Covenants 
and Equitable Servitudes." Washington and Lee Law Review, 43 
(Spring 1986):337-368. 

Bitner, Jack. Pennsylvania Chautauqua: 1892-1992. Mount Gretna, Pa.: 
The Pennsylvania Chautauqua, 1992. 

Borough of Eagles Mere. Zoning Ordinance of 1988 (1988). 

Bradshaw, David N. ed. Lake Mokoma and Laporte: An Illustrated History of 
the Area, Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. Laporte, Pa.: Lake Mokoma 
Association, 1978. 

Brandywine Conservancy. "Conservation Easements," Chadds Ford, current. 

Brandywine Conservancy. Protecting Historic Properties: A Guide to 

Research and Preservation. Chadds Ford: Brandywine Conservancy, 

Browne, Kingsbury. "The 1986 Tax Reform Act and AMT." Land Trusts' 
Exchange 6 (Spring 1987): 4-5. 

Campen, Richard N. Chautauqua Impressions: Architecture and Ambience. 
Chagrin Falls, Oh.: West Summit Press, 1984. 


Chase, E.S. "Eagles Mere Lake." Undated Manuscript. (Mimeographed). 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Community Affairs. 

Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. Act of 1968, P.L. 805, 
No. 247, reenacted and amended by Act of 1988, P.L. 1329, No. 
170 (1989). 

Congressional Research Service. An Overview of Federal Tax Policies 

Encouraging Donations of Conservation Easements to Preserve Natural 
Areas, by Richard W. Dunford, Report Nr. 84-48 ENR. Washington, 
D.C.: Library of Congress, 29 February 1984. 

Coughlin, Thomas A., dir. Appraising Easements: Guidelines for Valuation of 
Historic Preservation and Land Conservation Easements. 2nd ed. 
Washington D.C.: The Land Trust Alliance. 

Coughlin, Thomas A. "Easements and Other Legal Techniques to Protect 
Historic Property in Private Ownership." Preservation Law Reporter 6 
(Fall/Winter 1987): 2031-2045. 

The Crestmont Inn. The Crestmont Inn, 1914. Advertising Brochure. 
Eagles Mere, Pa.: The Crestmont Inn, 1914. 

The Crestmont Inn. The Crestmont Inn, 1915. Advertising Brochure. 
Eagles Mere, Pa.: The Crestmont Inn, 1915. 

The Crestmont Inn. The Crestmont Inn, 1918. Advertising Brochure. 
Eagles Mere, Pa.: The Crestmont Inn, 1918. 

The Crestmont Inn. The Crestmont Inn, 1923. Advertising Brochure. 
Philadelphia: The Holmes Press, 1923. 

The Crestmont inn. Crestmont Routes. Crestmont Inn Local Tour Guide 
and Map, 1938. 

Cronon, William. Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New 
York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1991. 

Department of Conservation and Historic Resources. "Preserving A Legacy," 
Richmond, Virginia, 1988. 

Department of Conservation and Historic Resources. "Virginia's Heritage: A 
Property Owner's Guide to Resource Protection." Richmond, Virginia, 


Derbes, Max J. "Facade Easement Valuation Methodology." The Appraisal 
Journal L\/\ (January 1988):60-69. 

Diehl, Janet and Barrett, Thomas. The Conservation Easement Handbook: 
Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement 
Programs. San Francisco: Trust for Public Land and Land, and 
Alexandria, Va.: Land Trust Exchange, 1988. 

Diehl, Janet. "The Importance of a Weil-Defined Easement Program." Land 
Trusts' Exchange Q (Spring 1987): 6-7. 

Dodd, Jill S. "Charitable Contributions of Property." The Journal of Real 
Estate Taxation 17 (Summer 1990): 374-376. 

Dorsey, Leslie, and Devine, Janice. Fare Thee Well. New York: Crown 
Publishers, 1964. 

Duerksen, Christopher J., ed. A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. 
Washington: The Conservation Foundation and The National Center 
for Preservation Law, 1983. 

Dulles, Foster R. America Learns to Play: A History of Popular Recreation 
1607-1940. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 1940. 

Dunkin, Amy, ed. "Making Sure They Never Pave Your Paradise." Business 
Week, 26 August 1991, pp. 74-75. 

Dykxhoorn, Hans J. and Sinning, Kathleen E. "Saving Taxes and the 

Environment." National Public Accountant, June 1992, pp. 28-30. 

Eagles Mere Art Views Company, Picturesque Eagles Mere, Eagles Mere 
Park, Pa.: By the Company, 14 August 1906. 

Eagles Mere Association, "By-Laws." 1988. (Mimeographed.) 

Eagles Mere Association, "Information Booklet." (Mimeographed.) 

Eagles Mere Chautauqua, vol. I, 1 June, 1896. 

Eagles Mere Chautauquan, vol. I, 1 June, 1897. 

Eagles Mere Chautauquan, vol. IV, June, 1899. 


Eagles Mere Land Company, et al. Eagles Mere This Year: 1916. Eagles 
Mere, Pa.: By the Authors, 1916. 

Eagles Mere Land Company. Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania's New Mountain 
Resort. Eagles Mere, Pa.: By the Company, 1887-1888. 

Eagles Mere, PA. Zoning Ordinance of 1988 (1988). 

Egle, William H. An Illustrated History of the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, Pa.: DeWill C. Goodrich & Co., 1876. 

Elkin, Gary J. "Granger v. United States," Preservation Law Reporter, 7 
(Annual 1988): 1012-1013. 

English, llkona S. "A Preservation Plan for East Amwell Township East 
Amwell, New Jersey." Masters of Science Thesis, University of 
Pennsylvania, 1988. 

Evans, George S. "The Wilderness." In The Call of the Wild (1900-1916), 
pp. 75-78. Edited by Roderick Nash. 1970. 

Fancher, Pauline. Chautauqua: Its Architecture and Its People. Miami: 
Banyan Books, 1978. 

Paris, John T. Seeing Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 

Fitch, William E. The Carlsbad of America: The Bedford Springs Resort for 
Health and Recreation. Bedford Springs, Pa.: The Bedford Springs 
Co., 1928. 

The Forest Inn. 7/7e Fores? //?/?. Advertising Brochure. Printed by Horace 
McFarland Co., Harrisburg, Pa. Undated. 

Frommer, Myrna K., and Frommer, Harvey. It Happened in the Catskills. 
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991. 

From the Mountains--A Brief Sketch of Eagle's Mere; of Its Natural Wonders 
and Where to Find Them-Caught on the Fly by Our Correspondent. 
Eagles Mere, [1885]. (Note: Unpublished pamphlet which copied a 
newspaper article). 


Gale, Dennis E. "The Impacts of Historic District Designation: Planning and 
Policy implications." Journal of the American Planning Association 
57 (Summer 1991): 325-339. 

Gillmore, J.H. The Chautauqua Text-Books: English Literature. New Yorl<: 
Phillips & Hunt, 1883. 

Golicz, Lawrence J. "Historical Facade Easements: The Impact of Future 
Costs." The Appraisal Journal (January 1984): 9-15. 

Green, Harvey. Fit For America: Health Fitness Sport and American 
Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. 

Grover, Kathryn, ed. Hard at Play: Leisure in America, 1840-1940. 
Amherst, Ma.: University of Massachusetts Press, 1972. 

Harris, Donna Ann. "Historic Facade Easements and the Public Trust." The 
Real Estate Finance Journal, Summer 1989, pp. 51-56. 

Hausmann, Ann C. "Rural Conservation: A Vision of the Aaron Garrett 
Property." Masters of Science Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 

Historic Green Springs, Deed of Easement, 10 March 1973. 

Historic Preservation Foundation of North Carolina. Handbook of Revolving 
Funds for Nonprofit Historic Preservation Organizations. Raleigh: 
Historic Preservation Foundation of North Carolina, 1986-87. 

Hotel Eagles Mere. Hotel Eagles IVIere. Advertising Brochure. Philadelphia: 
Franklin Printing Company, circa 1900. 

Howard County, Maryland. Agriculture Land Preservation Program: FY 91 
Annual Report (1992). 

Hyperion Society, The. The Back Forty. San Francisco: The Hyperion 
Society, September/October 1992. 

Ingham, Thomas J. History of Sullivan County Pennsylvania. Chicago: The 
Lewis Publishing Co., 1899. 

Jackson, John B. American Space: The Centennial Years 1865-1876. New 
York: W.W:. Norton & Co., 1972. 


Jakle, John A. The Tourist: Travel in Twentiethi-Century Nortli America. 
Lincoln Ne.: University of Nebraska Press, 1985. 

James, Barbara and James, Bushrod. 'IVIere Reflections: A Unique Journey 
Through Historic Eagles Mere. Montoursville, Pa.: Palhamus Lltino, 
Inc., 1988. 

James, Barbara and James, Bushrod. The Crestmont Inn: A History. 
Westfield, N.J.: By the Authors, 1991. 

Katz, Ellen E. "Conserving the Nation's Heritage Using the Uniform 

Conservation Easement Act." Washington and Lee Law Review 43 
(Spring 1986):369-397. 

Kaye, Ellen. "Mount Gretna grandiose." Inquirer Magazine, May 21, 1989, 
pp. 40-41. 

Kehrer, Raymond. "Cottages for Rent at Eagles Mere." Rental Listing. 
Circa 1907. 

Knight, Robert M. and Dana, Andrew C. "Coordinated Conservation 

Easement Donations: Problems and a Proposed Solution." Part I, 
Draft, Missuia, Montana, 1993. 

Kramer, J.J. The Last of the Grand Hotels. New York: Van Norstrand 
Reinhold Co., 1978. 

The Lakeside. The Lakeside. Advertising Brochure. Eagles Mere, Pa.: The 
Lakeside, 1915. 

The Lakeside. The Lakeside. Advertising Brochure. Eagles Mere, Pa.: The 
Lakeside, 1918. 

The Lakeside. The Lakeside in the Pennsylvania Alleghenies, 1880-1920. 
Advertising Brochure. Eagles Mere, Pa.: The Lakeside, 1920. 

The Lakeside. The Lakeside. Advertising Brochure. Eagles Mere, Pa.: The 
Lakeside, 1922. 

The Lakeside. The Legend of the Lakeside. Advertising Brochure. Eagles 
Mere, Pa.: The Lakeside, 1955. 

Land Trust Alliance. Land Trust Alliance. Information Pamphlet. 
Washington, D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, [Summer 1990]. 


Land Trust Alliance. Appraising Easements: Guidelines for Valuation of 

Historic Preservation and Land Conservation Easements. Washington, 
D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, [1990]. 

Land Trust Alliance. "Starting A Land Trust: A Guide to Fornning a Land 
Conservation Organization." Alexandria, Va.: Land Trust Alliance, 

Land Trust Alliance. 1991-92 National Directory of Conservation Land 
Trusts. Washington, D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, 1992. 

Land Trust Exchange. 1989 National Directory of Conservation Land Trusts. 
Alexandria, Va.: Land Trust Exchange, 1989. 

Land Trust Exchange Staff. Entire Publication on Easements Exchange, 
Spring 1989. 

Laporte Register. Various Issues, including: 17 October 1892; 29 August, 
1895; 6 January 1902; 10 February 1911. 

Long, Wiliianri, "Negotiating a Mortgage Subordination." The Journal of the 
Land Trust Exchange (Spnng 1989):8, 15. 

Loth, Calder, Preserving A Legacy: A Catalogue of Historic Landmarks 
Preserved Through Easements Donated to the Virginia Historic 
Landmarks Board. Richnnond, Va.: Virginia Department of 
Conservation and Historic Resources, 1988. 

Matthew Bender & Company. A: 17. 205 Qualified Conservation 

Contribution. New York: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1999. 

Mauser, I.H. Williamsport and North Branch Railroad, (The Satterfield 

Route,) and The Eagle's Mere Railway. Milton, Pa.: Milton Printing 
Co., 1894. 

McFarland, J. Horace. A Day At Eagles IVIere. Harrisburg, Pa.: Horace J. 
McFarland Co. /Mount Pleasant Printery, 1900. 

McFarland, J. Horace, and McFarland, Robert B. Eagles Mere and The 

Sullivan Highlands. Harrisburg, Pa.: J. Horace McFarland Co., 1944. 

McFarland, J. Horace. The New Eagles Mere: 7570. Harrisburg, Pa.: J. 
Horace McFarland Co. /Mount Pleasant Printery, 1910. 


McFarland, J. Horace. The Forest Inn. Summer Life Worth Living: The 
Forest Inn in the Forest. Harrisburg, Pa.: J. Horace McFarland 
Co. /Mount Pleasant Printery, 1916. 

McFarland Publication Services. The Story of Eagles Mere and the Smith 

Families. Eagles Mere, Pa.: Eagles Mere Publicity Association, 1911. 

Morgan, Allen H. "You Must Have Money to Win." Land Trusts' Exchange 
5 (Winter 1987): 18-19. 

Mount, Dorothy S. A Story of New Egypt and Plumsted Township. New 
Egypt, N.J.: By the Author, 1979. 

Murphy, Raymond E., and Murphy, Marion. Pennsylvania: A Regional 
Geography. Harrisburg, Pa.: Pennsylvania Book Service, 1937. 

Mumma, Laura Sickel. "Of Cottages and Kings." Pennsylvania Heritage 3 

Nagel, Stephen. "Establishing an Easement Program to Protect Historic, 

Scenic, and Natural Resources." Information, No. 25, 1991, pp. 20. 

Nation, Anne M. "Preservation Easements: Can They Work for You?" 

Nonprofit World, Vol. 5, No. 6, November-December 1987, pp. 20- 

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale 
University Press, 1967. 

National Trust for Historic Preservation. Information. Series No. 25 

Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, [1992]. 

National Trust for Historic Preservation. "I.R.S. Rules that Conveyance of 

Preservation Easement Triggers Partial Recapture of Rehabilitation Tax 
Credit." PLR Advance, August 1989 pp. 1-2. 

National Trust for Historic Preservation. "Facade Easement Valuation Cases: 
1985-1990." Washington, D.C. (Mimeographed.) 

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Center for Historic Houses, 

"Easements: Protection of the Older House. " Washington, D.C. 


Nation, Anne M., "Preservation Easements: Can Tliey Worl< for You?" 
Nonprofit World, November-December, 1987, pp. 20-24. 

Neiman, Jill D. "Easement Holder Liability Under CERCLA: the Right Way to 
Deal with Rights-of Way." Michigan Law Review 89 (March 1991): 

Nelson, T. Nelson's Guide to Lake George and Lake Champlain. London: T. 
Nelson and Sons, 1858. 

Netter, Richard B. "Court Enjoins Property Owner From Violating 

Conservation Easement," Preservation Law Reporter, 1 1 (February 

Nicholson, James B. The Tradition of Eagle's Mere [sic]. By the Author, 

Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy. This is Your Land Williamsport, 
Pa.: Northcentral Pennsylvania Conservancy, current. 

Oakley, Amy. Our Pennsylvania: Keys to the Keystone State. Indianapolis 
and New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1950. 

"Of Time and the Winter," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 21 February 1993, 
sec. R, p. R1. 

Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of 1968, P.L. 
805, No. 247 (1988). 

Pennsylvania, The National Register Process in Pennsylvania. (Bureau for 
Historic Preservation, 1989). 

Pennsylvania. My Pennsylvania: A Brief History of the Commonwealth's 
Sixty-seven Counties. (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1946). 

Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State Department of Public Instruction 
(University of Pennsylvania, 1940). 

Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation. "Easement Donation 
Preocession Requirements." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1993. 

Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation. "Facade Easement Program: 
Technical Information." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1993. 


Preservation Law Reporter, "Hillborn v. Commissioner," 5 (Spring 
1986): 3001-3005. 

Preservation Lav^ Reporter, "Nicoladis v. Commissioner," 7 (Annual 1988): 

Preservation Law Reporter, "Losch v. Commissioner," 7 (Annual 1988): 

Preservation Law Reporter, "Richmond v. United States," 7 (Annual 1988): 

Preservation Law Reporter, "Granger v. United States," 7 (Annual 1988): 

Preservation Law Reporter, "Tax Court Values Preservation Easement on 
building Facade at One-Third of Building's Value," 9 (August 1990): 

Preservation Pennsylvania. Preserving Pennsylvania. Lancaster, Pa.: 
Preservation Pennsylvania, 1992. 

Rau, William H. "Hotel Eagles Mere," Advertising Brochure. Philadelphia: 
Hotel Eagles Mere, circa 1906. 

The Raymond Hotel. The Raymond: The "Central" Hotel. Advertising 
Brochure. Harrisburg: J. McFarland Co., 1915. 

Reed, Roger. A Delight to All Who Know It: The Maine Summer 

Architecture of William R. Emerson. Augusta, Me.: Maine Historic 
Preservation Commission, 1990. 

Rinhart, Floyd and Rinhart, Marion. Summertime: Photographs of 

Americans at Play 1850-1900. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1978. 

Roddewig, Richard J. "Preservation Easement Law: An Overview of Recent 
Developments." The Urban Lawyer Volume 18, No. 1 (Winter 1988): 

Rosen, David A. and Monahan, James E. "The Tax Benefits of Gifting Land 
for Conservation." The Real Estate Finance Journal, Spring 1991, pp. 


Ryan, Robert S. Pennsylvania Zoning Law and Practice. 1 991-92 
Supplement. Philadelphia: George T. Bisel Company, 1992. 

Scully, Vincent J. Tiie Sfiingle Style and The Stick Style. 2nd ed. New 
Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. 

Sears, John F. Sacred Places: American Tourist Attractions in the 

Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. 

Sellers, H. William, ed. Protecting Historic Properties: A Guide to Research 
and Preservation. Chadds Ford, Pa.: Brandywine Conservancy, 

Servary, Raymond F. and Neubert, Dale B. "An Agricultural Land 

Preservation Program that Developers Can't Match." Government 
Finance Review, February 1991, pp. 17-20. 

Shi, David E. The Simple Life: Plain Living and High Thinking in American 
Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1 985. 

Sibley, Glen E. "Environmental Insurance." Urban Land, July, 1992, pp. 

Singleton, Eric. "Preventing and Preparing for Easement-Related Litigation." 
The Back Forty 3 (September/October 1992): 1-6. 

Small, Stephen J. The Federal Tax Law of Conservation Easements. Bar 
Harbor: Land Trust Exchange, 1986. 

Small, Stephen J. Preserving Family Lands: A Landowner's Introduction to 
Tax Issues and Other Considerations. Boston: Powers & Hall 
Professional Corporation, 1988. 

"Some More Eagles Mere Problems." LaPorte Register, 31 July 1902. 

Stern, Robert A.M. Pride of Place: Building the American Dream. Boston: 
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1986. 

Streby, George. History of Eagles Mere Borough and Shrewsbury Township. 
Dushore, Pa.: Sullivan Gazette, 1905. 

Sullivan Review. Various Issues, including: 22 May 1884; 25 July, 1890; 4 
June 1891; 1 October 1891; 2 May 1893; 17 August 1893; 18 
September 1902; 26 July, 1922. 


Sutte, Donald T. and Cunninghann, Roger A. Scenic Easements: Legal, 
Administrative, and Valuation Problems and Procedures. Hinsdale: 
Highway Research Board, (1968). 

Swann, Robert S., dir. The Community Land Trust: A Guide to a new 
Model for Land Tenure in America. Cambridge, Ma.: 1972. 

Swingler, W.S. "History of the Forest Lands Around Eaglesmere [sic]." 
Forest Leaves, Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Forestry Association, 
August, 1930, pp. 146-148. 

Taber, Thomas T. Muncy Valley Lifeline: The Life and Times of the 

Williamsport and North Branch and Eagles Mere Railroads. 2nd ed. 
Williamsport, Pa.: Lycoming Printing Company, 1972. 

Tatman, Sandra and Moss, Roger W. Biographical Dictionary of Philadelphia 
Architects: 1700-1930. Boston: G.K. Hall & Company, 1985. 

The Nature Conservancy. "Conservation Easements." Arlington, Virginia, 
July 1992. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Tv^/enty -first Census 
of the United States, 1 990. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Twentieth Census 
of the United States, 1980. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Nineteenth Census 
of the United States, 1970. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Eighteenth Census 
of the United States, 1960. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of 
the United States, 1940. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Fourteenth Census 
of the United States, 1920. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Eleventh Census of 
the United States, 1890. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Tenth Census of the 
United States, 1880. 


U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Ninth Census of the 
United States, 1870. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Preservation Tax 
incentives for Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C., 1990. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources 
Program. Federal Historic Preservation Laws, (1 989-1 990). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Deed of Gift: 

Conservation Easement, GRSP Generic Easement for Green Springs 
National Historic District, (8 December 1992). 

Utiaut, Robert L. "The Role of the Chautauqua Movement in the Shaping of 
Progressive Thought in America at the End of the Nineteenth 
Century." PhD. dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1972. 

Van Herik, Russell. "Financial and Legal Aspects of Land Management." 
The Journal of the Land Trust Exchange, Fall 1989, pp. 4-5. 

Van Zandt, Roland. The Catskilf IVIountain House. New Brunswick, N.J.: 
Rutgers University Press, 1966. 

Vincent, J. The Chautauqua Text-Books: Outlines of General History. New 
York: Phillips and Hunt, 1881 . 

Virginia. A Future for Virginia's Past: The Final Report of the Governor's 
Commission to Study Historic Preservation (November 1988). 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Vision and Choice: Protecting 
Our Historic Resources. (1990). 

Virginia. Preserving a Legacy (1988). 

Waterford Foundation. About Waterford. Waterford: Waterford 
Foundation, Waterford, Virginia, 1991. 

Weygandt, Cornelius. The Blue Hills: Rounds and Discoveries in the 

Country Places of Pennsylvania. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 

White, Kirby, ed. The Community Land Trust Handbook. Emmaus, Pa.: 
Rodale Press, 1982. 


Whyte, William H. The Last Landscape. Garden City, New York: 
Doubleday & Co., 1968. 

Whyte, William H. "A New Use of Conservation Easements: Urban 

Landscape Easements." Land Trust's Exchange 7 (Winter, 1988): 6- 

Wiechec, Elizabeth. "Property Lines - Subordinating Mortgages to 

Conservation Easements." Land Trusts' Exchange Vol. 5, No. 2 (Fall 
1986): 14-15. 

"The Williamsport Sun Says:" Laporte Register, 29 August, 1895. 

Wilson, Richard Guy. "Victorian Resorts and Hotels." Nineteenth Century 
Vol. 8, Nos. 1-2 (1982): 9-20. 

Wilson, Richard Guy. "From Informality to Pomposity: The Resort Casino in 
the Later 19th Century". Nineteenth Century Vol. 8, Nos. 1-2 (1982): 

Wilson, John. Health and Health Resorts. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 

Wood, Robert W. "Charitable Contributions of Property." The Journal of 
Real Estate Taxation (Fall 1991): 64-66. 

Wood, Robert W. and Dodd, Jill S. "Charitable Contributions of Property." 
The Journal of Real Estate Taxation 1 7 (Winter 1 990): 1 82-185. 

Young Mens Christian Association. "Pennsylvania Bible Conference: Eagles 
Mere 1907." Information Brochure. Printed by McFarland, Printers, 
Harrisburg, Pa., 1907. 


Bitner, Jack. Author of /4 Coleman Legacy, (1986) Book on Mount Gretna, 
Pennsylvania. Interview, 30 July 1992. 

Blades, William. Philadelphia Historic Development Corporation, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Interview, 22 January 1993. 


Brewer, Michael. State of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts. 
Interview, 6 January 1993. 

Butler, David. Nature Conservancy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Interview, 5 
January 1993. 

Ely, Ray. Ray Ely Associates, Louisa, Virginia. Interview, 1 1 February 

Gary, Grace. Preservation Fund of Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 
Interview, 11 January 1993. 

Godley, Fred. Eagles Mere Conservancy, Eagles Mere, Pennsylvania. 
Interview, 22 April 1993. 

Harris, Donna Ann. Historic Trust of Lower Merion, Ardmore, Pennsylvania. 
Interview, 4 April 1993. 

Harris, Sam. Kieran Timberlake & Harris, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
Interview, 20 April 1993. 

Hawkinson, Andrew. Reaves Lukens Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 
Interview, 28 January 1993. 

Herrman, Chris. North Central Pennsylvania Conservancy, Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania. Interview, 22 January 1993. 

Hufnagel, Michael. Sullivan County Office of Planning and Development, 
Laporte, Pennsylvania. Interview, 5 February 1993, and 14 April 

James, Barbara and Bushrod. Author of 'Mere Reflections: A Unique 

Journey Tiirougii /-iistoric Eagles Mere. Interviewed numerous times 
between May and August, 1992, and 2 February 1993. 

James, Bush. Westfield, New Jersey. Interview, 4 March 1993. 

Johnson, Andrew. Conservation Advisors, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. 
Interview, 8 January 1993. 

Knight, Robert. Knight, McClay, Mesor, Missula, Montana. Interview, 6 
February 1993. 


Langhorne, Chriswell, Attorney, Georgetown Historic District, Washington, 
D.C. Interview, 19 January 1993. 

McConnell, Virginia. Virginia Historic Landnnarl<s, Riclnmond, Virginia. 
Interview, 5 January 1993. 

iVIurphy, William. Historic Preservation Fund of North Carolina, Raleigh, 
North Carolina. Interview, 15 January 1993. 

Nagel, Stefan. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 
Interview, 30 March 1993. 

Ramsey, Greg. Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania. Interview, 6 April 1993. 

Shields, David. Brandywine Conservancy, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. 
Interview, 7 January 1993. 

Shusterman, Robert. Robert Shusterman, Attorney, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. Interview, 1 January 1993. 

Smith, Van. Land Trust Alliance, Washington, D.C. Interview, 12 January 

Schneider, Adam. Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Interview 6 January 1993. 

Zcinck, James R. National Park Service, Green Springs National Historic 
District, Louisa, Virginia. Interview, 14 January 1993. 


Anne & Jerome Fisher 

University of Pennsylvania 

Please return this book as soon as you have finished with 
it. It must be returned by the latest date stamped below. 


FEB 2 1 W4 

UNiV. Gh Fcf 'A